# Clemente v. State of California

> California Supreme Court · October 28, 1985 · 40 Cal. 3d 202

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9847232

## Case

- **Full name:** JOSE L. CLEMENTE, an Incompetent Person, Etc., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Et Al., Defendants and Appellants
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 28, 1985
- **Citations:** 40 Cal. 3d 202; 219 Cal. Rptr. 445; 707 P.2d 818; 1985 Cal. LEXIS 403
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kaus
- **Judges:** Broussard, Kaus
- **Cited by:** 79 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9847232

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the admission of immigration status, "even if marginally relevant [regarding damages], was highly prejudicial"
- holding that state could be sued when highway patrol officer allowed a motorcyclist who had struck a pedestrian to leave the scene without obtaining his identity
- noting it is well established that res judicata applies to workmen’s compensation determinations, as does collateral estoppel, where party against whom it is asserted was party to prior adjudication
- holding illegal immigrant status, “even if marginally relevant [on damages issues], was highly prejudicial”
- holding immigration status, "even if marginally relevant [on damages issues], was highly prejudicial"

## Opinion text

KAUS, J. *
I concur in the result and in all parts of the court’s opinion, except—if I read it correctly—its view of the impact of Williams v. State of California (1983) 34 Cal.3d 18 [ 192 Cal.Rptr. 233 , 664 P.2d 137 ], on the law of the case as laid down in Clemente I. The court makes a valiant effort to reconcile the two decisions but, with all respect, it does not quite work. Of course Williams does not preclude liability where the officer’s conduct prevents other assistance, but there is no evidence here that this was the case. At most, the situation was such that had trial counsel known that such proof was essential, he might have been able to produce it. The real—and only—point is that Clemente I did not require such proof and Williams was not decided until after the trial of this case. Under such circumstances, refusal to apply the doctrine of the law of the case would be most unfair. Just as that doctrine will not be adhered to “where its application will result in an unjust decision” (DiGenova v. State Board of Education (1962) 57 Cal.2d 167, 179 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 369 , 367 P.2d 865 ]), it should not be laid aside where to do so would be manifestly wrong.
Grodin, J., concurred.
Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court sitting under assignment by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9847232. Public record. Not legal advice.