Willie F. Allen, D/B/A Willie F. Allen Janitorial Service v. Greenville County, a Political Subdivision

Fourth Circuit

Willie F. Allen, D/B/A Willie F. Allen Janitorial Service v. Greenville County, a Political Subdivision

712 F.2d 934, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 25496

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 26, 1983

Docket82-1798

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 712 F.2d 934 (Willie F. Allen, D/B/A Willie F. Allen Janitorial Service v. Greenville County, a Political Subdivision) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Willie F. Allen, D/B/A Willie F. Allen Janitorial Service v. Greenville County, a Political Subdivision, 712 F.2d 934, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 25496 (4th Cir. 1983).

Pincite

Opinions

ALBERT V. BRYAN, Senior Circuit Judge:

Appellant Willie F. Allen¹ contracted with Greenville County, South Carolina to provide janitorial services for certain County buildings for a twelve month period at a stated consideration of $126,000.00. The agreement was terminable at will by either party upon 10 days written notice. He began performance and continued until the County exercised its right of termination and accordingly notified Allen of its intention to bring the contract to a close.

On October 30,1980 in the Court of Common Pleas of Greenville County, Allen sued the County for breach of the agreement. He pleaded the contract and his full performance of it and the County’s enlargement of Allen’s obligations beyond the terms of the contract. Additionally, he alleged precontract misrepresentation by the County of the extent and volume of work involved as well as the injustice by the County. Trial of the action resulted in a directed verdict for the County. Allen did not appeal.

In May 1982 Allen sued the County in the United States District Court for South Carolina asserting that the contract had been brought to an end for racially discriminatory reasons, in violation of his civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and remediable under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1988.

Upon due hearing the Court ruled that the doctrine of res judicata barred Allen from litigating under section 1983 because the claim clearly could have been raised in Allen’s earlier State court action. The action was then dismissed with prejudice and this appeal followed.

We conclude that the District Court’s dismissal was plainly right. There was but a single cause of action — the termination of the agreement. The sole injury for which Allen sought compensation was the allegedly wrongful termination of the contract. The State court had, however, determined that the termination was proper and pursuant to the contract terms. Its judgment of the merits is a finality as to the claim in controversy and forecloses further litigation.

AFFIRMED.

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

ALBERT V. BRYAN, Senior Circuit Judge:

Appellant Willie F. Allen¹ contracted with Greenville County, South Carolina to provide janitorial services for certain County buildings for a twelve month period at a stated consideration of $126,000.00. The agreement was terminable at will by either party upon 10 days written notice. He began performance and continued until the County exercised its right of termination and accordingly notified Allen of its intention to bring the contract to a close.

On October 30,1980 in the Court of Common Pleas of Greenville County, Allen sued the County for breach of the agreement. He pleaded the contract and his full performance of it and the County’s enlargement of Allen’s obligations beyond the terms of the contract. Additionally, he alleged precontract misrepresentation by the County of the extent and volume of work involved as well as the injustice by the County. Trial of the action resulted in a directed verdict for the County. Allen did not appeal.

In May 1982 Allen sued the County in the United States District Court for South Carolina asserting that the contract had been brought to an end for racially discriminatory reasons, in violation of his civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and remediable under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1988.

Upon due hearing the Court ruled that the doctrine of res judicata barred Allen from litigating under section 1983 because the claim clearly could have been raised in Allen’s earlier State court action. The action was then dismissed with prejudice and this appeal followed.

We conclude that the District Court’s dismissal was plainly right. There was but a single cause of action — the termination of the agreement. The sole injury for which Allen sought compensation was the allegedly wrongful termination of the contract. The State court had, however, determined that the termination was proper and pursuant to the contract terms. Its judgment of the merits is a finality as to the claim in controversy and forecloses further litigation.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

712 F.2d 934, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 25496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willie-f-allen-dba-willie-f-allen-janitorial-service-v-greenville-ca4-1983.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack