 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Owens v. City of Phoenix11/15/1994
effect during the time period underlying this case. Each version presented differs significantly from the others by shortening or lengthening the time to file an appeal, changing the entity that hears a certain level of appeal, changing the entity with the final authority over an appeal, or adding or deleting various steps of the appeal process.
Under this state of the record, we find that the trial court's determination that Owens exhausted his administrative remedies to the best of his ability was supportable.
II. Owens' Claims Are Not Barred By The Doctrine Of Res Judicata.
Finally, the City contends that the dismissal of Owens' 1987 Complaint is res judicata as to the present action. The doctrine of res judicata is only applicable if the parties, subject matter, and issues of the two actions are the same, and the issues relate to the same subject matter. Snow v. Kennedy, 36 Ariz. 475, 478, 286 P. 930, 934 (1930).
The 1987 Complaint did not address the causes of action that are at issue in this matter. Although the 1987 Complaint did seek relocation assistance and payments, those benefits were sought solely for Owens' residential property. Neither the individual claims nor the class action claims asserted in the 1987 Complaint sought any type of relocation benefits for Owens' business property.
Moreover, Owens could not have asserted the relocation claims with regard to his business property at the time he filed his 1987 Complaint. Those claims were not ripe at that time because he was not yet even eligible for relocation assistance on that property. Therefore, this lawsuit is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Conclusion
We find that Owens' claims are not barred by the applicable statutes of limitations and that Owens' Complaint stated a claim for relief under § 1983. Accordingly, the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City on those issues is hereby reversed. We affirm the trial court's denial of summary judgment to the City on the administrative remedies and res judicata arguments. This case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
EINO M. JACOBSON
Acting Presiding Judge
CONCURRING:
JEFFERSON L. LANKFORD, Judge
SYLVIA R. ARELLANO, Judge
NOTE: The Honorable Sylvia R. Arellano was authorized to participate in this appeal by the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 3.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|