Legal Opinion · Dissent

Houlihan v. Fimon

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided May 1, 1990No. C1-89-2058Published

1DissentLeslie, Judge

The majority concludes that collateral es-toppel should not apply in the present case. I disagree. It is undisputed that the identical issue is involved in both actions. Additionally, the arbitration proceeding qualifies as a prior adjudication. The supreme court’s decision in Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc., 452 N.W.2d 648 (Minn.1990) clearly supports application of collateral es-toppel under similar circumstances. The court held in Aufderhar that a party who has litigated the issue of personal injury damage with his insurance carrier in an arbitration proceeding may be estopped from…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
  2. Ehlert Ex Rel. Ehlert v. Western National Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
  3. Art Goebel, Inc. v. Array Construction Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API