Kay v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a California judgment is final and can be used for preclusive purposes once a party’s appeal rights have been exhausted
• holding that § 1983 claims cannot be brought for violations of 47 U.S.C. § 332
• explaining that “the finality required to invoke the 22 preclusive bar of res judicata [under California law] is not achieved until an appeal from the trial 23 court judgment has been exhausted or the time to appeal has expired.”
• finding immunity under sections 818.4 and 821.2 even where “the record 11 suggest[ed] that the denial of Kay’s permit may have been driven at least in part by animus on the 12 part of City officials”
• “Writs of mandate are used under California law ‘for the purpose of inquiring into the validity of any final administrative order . . . .’”
• “California’s primary rights theory does not 20 mean that different causes of action are involved just because relief may be obtained under either 21 of two legal theories.” (internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).