Gonzales v. Cassidy
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
474 F.2d 67 (1973)
Gaytan, an uninsured driver facing license suspension under the Texas Safety Responsibility Act, brought a class action challenging the law; after the Supreme Court vacated an initial ruling upholding the law (following its invalidation of a similar Georgia law), a three-judge panel on remand found the Texas law unconstitutional but granted only Gaytan himself retroactive relief, leaving the rest of the class with only prospective relief — and Gaytan did not appeal that limitation. Gonzales (plaintiff), suing on behalf of the same class in a separate action, had his case dismissed on res judicata grounds based on the Gaytan judgment, and appealed, arguing Gaytan was an inadequate class representative for failing to appeal on the class's behalf.
Whether, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, a class representative's failure to appeal a judgment adverse to the interests of the class renders that representative inadequate, precluding the judgment from binding the class under res judicata.