John J. Flynn, and v. State Board of Chiropractic Examiners, Earl E. Pope, Executive Secretary, and Does I Through V, Inclusive, And

Ninth Circuit

John J. Flynn, and v. State Board of Chiropractic Examiners, Earl E. Pope, Executive Secretary, and Does I Through V, Inclusive, And

418 F.2d 668

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 24, 1969

Docket23807

StatusPublished

Cited by32 cases

This text of 418 F.2d 668 (John J. Flynn, and v. State Board of Chiropractic Examiners, Earl E. Pope, Executive Secretary, and Does I Through V, Inclusive, And) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John J. Flynn, and v. State Board of Chiropractic Examiners, Earl E. Pope, Executive Secretary, and Does I Through V, Inclusive, And, 418 F.2d 668 (9th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The District Court properly dismissed appellant’s action on the ground that it was barred by res judicata.

Appellant’s complaint sought an injunction to prevent enforcement of appellees’ order suspending his California chiropractic license, claiming that the order violated his federal constitutional rights. His suit is foreclosed by a final judgment on the merits rendered by a California court with jurisdiction of the cause upholding the validity of appellees' order. It is immaterial whether or not the constitutional issues were actually litigated in appellant’s state court action, because we are here concerned with the application of that branch of the res judicata doctrine known as bar and not with the branch called collateral estoppel. “A final judgment on the merits between parties who in law are the same operates as a bar to a subsequent action upon the same cause of action, settling not only every issue that was raised, but also every issue that might have been raised in the first action.” Olwell v. Hopkins (1946) 28 Cal.2d 147, 152, 168 P.2d 972. (Accord: Parker v. Westover (9th Cir. 1955) 221 F.2d 603; Lester v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc. (9th Cir. 1954) 217 F.2d 399, cert. denied (1955) 348 U.S. 954, 75 S.Ct. 444, 99 L.Ed. 746.) Appellant’s state and federal actions are based on the same claimed wrong, suspension of his license, and the parties to both are identical. Appellant is not permitted to fragment a single cause of action and to litigate' piecemeal the issues which could have been resolved in one action.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The District Court properly dismissed appellant’s action on the ground that it was barred by res judicata.

Appellant’s complaint sought an injunction to prevent enforcement of appellees’ order suspending his California chiropractic license, claiming that the order violated his federal constitutional rights. His suit is foreclosed by a final judgment on the merits rendered by a California court with jurisdiction of the cause upholding the validity of appellees' order. It is immaterial whether or not the constitutional issues were actually litigated in appellant’s state court action, because we are here concerned with the application of that branch of the res judicata doctrine known as bar and not with the branch called collateral estoppel. “A final judgment on the merits between parties who in law are the same operates as a bar to a subsequent action upon the same cause of action, settling not only every issue that was raised, but also every issue that might have been raised in the first action.” Olwell v. Hopkins (1946) 28 Cal.2d 147, 152, 168 P.2d 972. (Accord: Parker v. Westover (9th Cir. 1955) 221 F.2d 603; Lester v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc. (9th Cir. 1954) 217 F.2d 399, cert. denied (1955) 348 U.S. 954, 75 S.Ct. 444, 99 L.Ed. 746.) Appellant’s state and federal actions are based on the same claimed wrong, suspension of his license, and the parties to both are identical. Appellant is not permitted to fragment a single cause of action and to litigate' piecemeal the issues which could have been resolved in one action.

The judgment is affirmed.

19 Fair empl.prac.cas. 439, 19 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9136 Joan Abramson v. University of Hawaii, a Body Corporate, Board of Regents, University of Hawaii, Harriet Miziguchi, Wallace S. Fujiyama, Sandra A. Ebesu, Roger C. Evans, John A. Hoag, Ruth Oshiro, Herbert M. Richards, Jr., Kiyoshi Sasaki, Thomas S. Shibano, in Their Respective Capacities as Members of the Board of Regents, University of Hawaii, Fujio Matsuda, President, University of Hawaii, in His Capacity as President of the University of Hawaii

594 F.2d 202 (Ninth Circuit, 1979)

People v. Rath Packing Co.

85 Cal. App. 3d 308 (California Court of Appeal, 1978)

Abbott Sekaquaptewa, Etc. v. Peter MacDonald Etc., Griffin B. Bell, Etc.

575 F.2d 239 (Ninth Circuit, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

418 F.2d 668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-j-flynn-and-v-state-board-of-chiropractic-examiners-earl-e-pope-ca9-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack