TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Elmo Blasi v. Robert W. Williams, Et Ux.

Elmo BLASI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert W. WILLIAMS, Et Ux., Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

Elmo Blasi v. Williams, 775 F.2d 1017 (9th Cir. 1985)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 31, 1985
Docket
No. 84-2596
Judges
Ferguson, Norris, Per Curiam, Wiggins
Citations
775 F.2d 10171985 U.S. App. LEXIS 24528

Opinion — Per Curiam

*1018 PER CURIAM:

In this case, Blasi, was discharged from his position with the State of Arizona. He appealed that decision to the Arizona Personnel Board which recommended that Bla-si’s termination be upheld. As authorized by Arizona law, Blasi thereupon filed suit in the Arizona Superior Court seeking reinstatement to his former position and back pay. Arizona law precluded an award of attorneys fees, or punitive damage against his employer, if he prevailed in his Superior Court suit. Blasi prevailed in State Court. While appeals were pending from this state judgment, Blasi filed the present action in the United States District Court alleging that his dismissal was the result of constitutional violations allegedly committed by his employer, the State of Arizona. He sought reinstatement, back pay, attorneys fees-and punitive damages.

The district court dismissed Blasi’s federal action on grounds of res judicata.

He appeals.

We have addressed the substantive issues in this case in an unpublished memorandum and affirm the judgment. We write here because this circuit has not declared a standard of review for considering the availability of res judicata in this context. We hold that the proper standard of review here is de novo.

In Davis & Cox v. Summa Corp., 751 F.2d 1507, 1519 (9th Cir.1985), this court adopted a de novo standard for reviewing the question of the availability of collateral estoppel. (Whether collateral estoppel is available is a mixed question of law and fact in which the legal issues predominate). The same standard is appropriate for determining the availability of res judicata. Whether an identity of parties and causes exist in successive cases also is a mixed question of law and fact in which the legal issues predominate.

AFFIRMED.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →
1986: 11988: 31989: 11990: 11992: 42002: 12007: 12018: 12021: 119862026peak 1992 · 4

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Davis & Cox, a P'ship v. Summa Corp., 751 F.2d 1507 (9th Cir. 1985) 151

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list