At page 1018 Determining standard of review for res judicata claims15 citing casesr es judicata
- Loomis v. Comm'r of the Internal Revenue Serv., No. 2:20-cv-00110 (D. Idaho Jan. 29, 2021).Blasi v. Williams, 775 F.2d 1017, 1018 (9th Cir. 1985).
- United States v. Hidden Valley Trust, No. 16-30303 (9th Cir. Nov. 14, 2018).unpublishedBlasi v. Williams, 775 F.2d 1017, 1018 (9th Cir. 1985).
- Stein v. Braum Inv. & Dev., Inc., 244 F. App'x 816 (9th Cir. 2007).unpublished“The preclusive effect of a judgment in a prior case presents a mixed question of law and fact in which the legal issues predominate.” Id. (citing Blasi v. Williams, 775 F.2d 1017, 1018 (9th Cir. 1985)).
- RSC the Quality Measurement Co. v. Ipsos-Asi, Inc., 196 F. Supp. 2d 609 (S.D. Ohio 2002).publishedSee Hammer v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 195 F.3d 836, 840 (6th Cir.1999); Blasi v. Williams, 775 F.2d 1017, 1018 (9th Cir.1985).
- E. & J. Gallo Winery, a California Corp., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. Gallo Cattle Co. Michael D. Gallo Joseph Gallo, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellants v. Ernest Gallo Julio Gallo, Counter-Defendants-Appellees, 967 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1992).publishedDarring v. Kincheloe, 783 F.2d 874, 876 (9th Cir.1986) (summary judgment); Guild Wineries and Distilleries v. Whitehall Co., 853 F.2d 755, 758 (9th Cir.1988) (res judicata ); Blasi v. Williams, 775 F.2d 1017, 1018 (9th Cir.1985) (res judic…
- E. & J. Gallo Winery, a California Corp., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. Gallo Cattle Co. Michael D. Gallo Joseph Gallo, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellants v. Ernest Gallo Julio Gallo, Counter-Defendants-Appellees, 955 F.2d 1327 (9th Cir. 1992).publishedDarring v. Kincheloe, 783 F.2d 874, 876 (9th Cir.1986) (summary judgment); Guild Wineries and Distilleries v. Whitehall Co., 853 F.2d 755, 758 (9th Cir.1988) (res judicata ); Blasi v. Williams, 775 F.2d 1017, 1018 (9th Cir.1985) (res judic…
- E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co., 955 F.2d 1327 (9th Cir. 1992).published(r es judicata)
- Lea v. Repub. Airlines, Inc., 903 F.2d 624 (9th Cir. 1990).published Blasi v. Williams, 775 F.2d 1017, 1018 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam).
- United States v. Donald E. Spencer, Rubbie R. Spencer, 892 F.2d 1047 (9th Cir. 1989).unpublishedBlasi v. Williams, 775 F.2d 1017, 1018 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam).
- Guild Wineries & Distilleries, an Agric. Coop., Plaintiff v. Whitehall Co., Ltd., a Massachusetts Corp., 853 F.2d 755 (9th Cir. 1988).publishedBlasi v. Williams, 775 F.2d 1017, 1018 (9th Cir.1985) (claim preclusion); Davis & Cox v. Summa Corp., 751 F.2d 1507, 1519 (9th Cir.1985) (issue preclusion).” Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 838 F.2d 318, 321 (9th Cir.1988). 3 Guild argues tha…
Show 3 more citing cases
- Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 838 F.2d 318 (9th Cir. 1988).publishedBlasi v. Williams, 775 F.2d 1017, 1018 (9th Cir.1985) (claim preclusion); Davis & Cox v. Summa Corp., 751 F.2d 1507, 1519 (9th Cir.1985) (issue preclusion).
- Paul Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., Five Platters, Inc. v. Paul Robi, Americana Hotel Corp., Gino Tonetti & Howard Wolfe, Tony Williams v. The Five Platters, Inc., 838 F.2d 318 (9th Cir. 1988).publishedBlasi v. Williams, 775 F.2d 1017, 1018 (9th Cir.1985) (claim preclusion); Davis & Cox v. Summa Corp., 751 F.2d 1507, 1519 (9th Cir.1985) (issue preclusion).
- Jack W. McClain v. Gilbert Apodaca, Kent Rogers, Coronado Fin. Corp. & Audio Sec., Inc., Edward M. Link & Carl F. Agren, 793 F.2d 1031 (9th Cir. 1986).publishedBlasi v. Williams, 775 F.2d 1017, 1018 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam).
At page 1017 cited at this page1 citing case
- Jie Lin v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 377 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2004).published Op. at -1038, lines 5-9 of Section III.B.6: Delete We address the question of prejudice below; here we focus solely on the performance prong posed in Mohsseni Behbahani,- ie., whether the facts allow the inference “that competent counsel w…
v.
Robert W. WILLIAMS, Et Ux., Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
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.