 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Soo Line Railroad Co. v. Brown's Crew Car of Wyoming3/11/2003
prison violated the inmates' constitutional rights. Id. The supreme court found that the issues in the federal class action and Haavisto case were not identical because in the class action the federal court did not address the issue of the individual officials' constitutional wrongdoing. Id.
Finally, Brown's argues that the district court has already decided that the indemnity agreement is an insured contract, and, thus, if collateral estoppel does not apply, Brown's is entitled to coverage. This conclusion appears to be supported by the court's summary-judgment order, but, because the court did apply collateral estoppel, the ruling necessarily was dictum. Accordingly, this matter must be remanded to allow the court to determine whether or not there has been full litigation of the question of whether the agreement is an insured contract. If that issue has been fully litigated, the court can order summary judgment consistent with the ruling that would have been dispositive but for the estoppel. If it has not, the parties must be given an opportunity to fully litigate the issue.
Reversed and remanded.
|