Zeppi v. State of California

California Court of Appeal May 8, 1962 No. Civ. 10373Published

Before: Pierce

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a change in case law, such as the abrogation of sovereign immunity, does not constitute an extrinsic mistake justifying equitable relief from a final judgment under the doctrine of res judicata.

Issues

Whether a subsequent change in case law regarding governmental immunity constitutes a mistake of law sufficient to vacate a final judgment in equity.
Whether the doctrine of res judicata bars the reopening of a final judgment based on a rule of law that was later abrogated.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Such “mistakes” or “injustices” are not a ground for equity’s intervention.”

“The trial court, however, has no discretion to exercise where the only mistake made by the appellate court in the earlier proceeding is in assuming that the doctrine of sovereign immunity would remain unchanged.”

[387]

PIERCE, J.

In October 1957, plaintiffs filed an action for personal injuries against the State of California, certain of its employees and individual defendants. A demurrer by the state was sustained without leave to amend. The ground of demurrer was “governmental immunity” of the state against tort liability. Plaintiffs appealed to this court from the judgment of dismissal against the state and the judgment appealed from was affirmed.

(Zeppi

State of California,

174 Cal.App.2d 484 [345 P.2d 33].) Hearing by the Supreme Court was denied. The remittitur was issued December 15, 1959. A jury trial in July 1960, resulted in a judgment of nonsuit against the state employees and a verdict and judgment against the individual defendants in favor of plaintiffs which has been only partially satisfied. In January 1961, the California Supreme Court in

Muskopf

Corning Hospital Dist.,

55 Cal.2d 211 [11 Cal.Rptr. 89, 359 P.2d 457], held that the doctrine of governmental immunity could no longer be used to shield an entity of government from liability for torts for which its agents were liable. This decision became final February 27, 1961. On March 24, 1961, a motion was made by plaintiffs to the trial court to vacate the judgment of dismissal against the State of California. On June 14, 1961, the trial court entered its order vacating the judgment and overruling the demurrer of the state. This appeal followed.

The theory of plaintiffs-respondents (and it was accepted by the trial court in ruling on their motion) was this: That the previous rulings of the superior court in sustaining the demurrer of the state, and in entering the judgment of dismissal and of this court in affirming the judgment, and of the Supreme Court in denying a hearing, were all “mistakes”and that such mistakes, whether they be considered mistakes of law or of fact or both, are subject to relief by a court of equity, notwithstanding the doctrine of res judicata or the doctrine of law of the ease. As case support for this contention respondents cite, as “front-line” authority,

Zeppi v. State of California

AI Brief

PIERCE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief