descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

John L. Debbs Patsy R. Debbs v. California Workers Compensation Appeals Board William B. Donohoe Dennis Hannigan Richard W. Younkin Jacob Margosian John S. Oda John R. Sullivan Diana Marshall Department of Industrial Relations for the State of California, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement

Citations: 60 F.3d 832; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 25440; 1995 WL 392058Docket: 95-15128

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; July 3, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

John and Patsy Debbs appeal the denial of their motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) to set aside a prior judgment, claiming it was void. Their original case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of specific provisions of the California Labor Code (Sections 5307.5, 5408, and 5307), stemming from a state court's determination that John Debbs was incompetent to represent himself in a workers' compensation claim. The district court upheld its dismissal of the Debbs' challenge, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The panel concluded that the case did not require oral argument and noted that the disposition is not precedential, per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Additionally, the Debbs' request to file a second reply brief was denied.

Legal Issues Addressed

Competency to Represent in Workers' Compensation Claims

Application: The case stemmed from a state court's determination that John Debbs was incompetent to represent himself in a workers' compensation claim.

Reasoning: stemming from a state court's determination that John Debbs was incompetent to represent himself in a workers' compensation claim.

Constitutionality of State Labor Code Provisions

Application: The Debbs challenged the constitutionality of specific provisions of the California Labor Code, but the district court upheld its dismissal of this challenge.

Reasoning: Their original case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of specific provisions of the California Labor Code (Sections 5307.5, 5408, and 5307).

Denial to File a Second Reply Brief

Application: The Debbs' request to file a second reply brief was denied by the appellate court.

Reasoning: Additionally, the Debbs' request to file a second reply brief was denied.

Disposition Without Oral Argument

Application: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the case did not require oral argument.

Reasoning: The panel concluded that the case did not require oral argument and noted that the disposition is not precedential, per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4)

Application: The Debbs sought to set aside a prior judgment by claiming it was void, invoking Rule 60(b)(4).

Reasoning: John and Patsy Debbs appeal the denial of their motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) to set aside a prior judgment, claiming it was void.

Non-precedential Dispositions

Application: The panel noted that the disposition of the case is not precedential, in accordance with Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Reasoning: The panel concluded that the case did not require oral argument and noted that the disposition is not precedential, per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.