Laserfiche WebLink
after the damages already documented addressed during the trial court proceedings in Trinidad <br />Colorado" and in related proceedings before the Interior Boazd of Land Appeals. See Colorado <br />Division of Minerals and Geology, Coal Inspection Report, Comments (Nov. 1, 2000). There is, <br />therefore, a bright line between what was decided by the District Court and what must be <br />decided by the Board, a line drawn through 1997. <br />To properly invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the Division and the Tatums must <br />show that: <br />the issue is identical to an issue actually and necessarily determined in the prior <br />proceeding; <br />2. the party against whom estoppel is asserted was a party or is in privity with a <br />party to the prior proceeding; <br />3. there is a final judgment on the merits in the prior proceeding; <br />4. 'the party against whom estoppel is asserted had a full opportunity to litigate the <br />issue in the prior proceeding. <br />See Bebo Construction Comnanv v. Mattox & O'Brien, PC, 990 P.2d 78, 84-85 (Colo. 1999); <br />accord Krendl, et al., Colorado Methods of Practice § 25.3 (4`h ed. 1997 & Supp. 2000). It is <br />sufficient to overcome a claim of collateral estoppel if the issues in the two matters aze not <br />identical. See, ems., Lazv Dop Ranch v. Tellurav Ranch Corporation, 965 P.2d 1229, 1238-39 <br />(Colo. 1998). <br />It is cleaz that the issue decided by the District Court is not identical to the issue before <br />the Boazd. The District Court looked at damage that occurred before 1997, while the Boazd must <br />consider damage arising after 1997. The fact that the resolution of those issues requires the <br />consideration of similaz facts does not make the issues identical for the purposes of collateral <br />-4- <br />