Case Summary

1607 In a Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) case, collateral estoppel may have barred relitigation of issues decided in a State Personnel Board proceeding, but res judicata did not preclude the suit even if it was based on the same facts adjudicated in the administrative proceeding because FEHA and state personnel laws protect different primary rights.

GEORGE v CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INS. APP. BD (Res Judicata) 179 CA4 1475 [See Govt Code §12940; Mycogen v Monsanto 28 C4 888, P/AT 09/2002]

1607 Contamination from oil discharge on a neighboring property constituted a permanent nuisance because the damage could not be abated through reasonable efforts. Because a prior owner first discovered the nuisance sixteen years before the lawsuit, plaintiff's cause of action was barred by the three year statute of limitations for damage to real property in Code of Civil Procedure § 338(b).

MCCOY v GUSTAFSON (Permanent Nuisance) 180 CA4 56, REV DENIED [See CCP § 338(b); Mangini v Aerojet, 12 C4 1087, T/AT 05/1996; Starrh v Aera, 153 CA4 583, T/AT 08/2007; CAMSI IV v Hunter Tech, 230 CA3 1525]

1607 In a Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) case, collateral estoppel may have barred relitigation of issues decided in a State Personnel Board proceeding, but res judicata did not preclude the suit even if it was based on the same facts adjudicated in the administrative proceeding because FEHA and state personnel laws protect different primary rights.

GEORGE v CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INS. APP. BD (Res Judicata) 179 CA4 1475 [See Govt Code §12940; Mycogen v Monsanto 28 C4 888, P/AT 09/2002]