Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive
Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Bettie Neale, Appellant, v. Frank Goldberg and Earl M. Robins, Appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 525 F.2d 332
Nov. 3, 1975
Bettie Neale in pro per.
Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen. of Cal., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees.
Before BROWNING and ELY, Circuit Judges, and SHARP, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM:
We have concluded that the District Court's summary judgment must be affirmed because the prior state court proceedings were res judicata as to all issues presented by the complaint in the District Court. Francisco Enterprises, Inc. v. Kirby, 482 F.2d 481 (9th Cir. 1973). Appellant argues that the state court granted a declaratory judgment and that, under California law, a declaratory judgment is not res judicata as to subsequent proceedings. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1738, which requires federal courts to give state judgments the 'same full faith and credit' the judgments would be given in the jurisdiction of their rendition, this court is obliged to apply California's law of res judicata. See 88 Harv.L.Rev. 453, 455--56 & n.16 (1974). And the California court's ruling cannot accurately be characterized as merely a declaratory judgment. The dispute had 'crystallized into a cause of action for past wrongs,' Travers v. Louden, 254 Cal.App.2d 926, 62 Cal.Rptr. 654, 656 (1967), and the state court's judgment provided for relief in addition to a simple declaration of the rights of the parties.
Affirmed.