ENFORCE36619 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

estoppel. Issues are not identical simply because they are factually related. Amigos Bravos v. EPA, 236 F.3d 621, 623 (10`" Cir. 2001). Issues aze not identical, for example, where facts previously decided aze a significant part of that prior claim, but aze not coextensive with the facts relevant to a second claim. Ferris v. Bakery. Confectionary and Tobacco Union, Local 26, 867 P.2d 38, 46 (Colo. App. 1993). The different time frames to be considered by the Boazd, as well as new theories propounded by the Tatums, assure that the facts in these two cases will not be coextensive. 2. The Policies Underlying Collateral Estoppel Do Not Require the Board to Limit its Inquiry The use of collateral estoppel proposed by the Division and the Tatums is characterized by the courts as "offensive collateral estoppel." Central Bank Denver NA v. Mehaffy Rider, Windhotz & Wilson, 940 P.2d 1097, 1103 (Colo. App. 1997), Krendl, supra, at § 25.3. Offensive collateral estoppel occurs when a party brings a claim against someone, and then azgues that the defendant is precluded from raising an issue in its defense under the collateral estoppel doctrine. ~ Because the Division and the Tatums deploy doctrine of collateral estoppe] offensively, the Boazd has discretion as to whether to allow preclusion of evidence concerning the causes of damage to the Tatum house. Central Bank, 940 P.2d at 1103. The Board has this discretion because the offensive use of the doctrine of collateral estoppel "does not promote judicial economy in the same way as defensive non-mutual collateral estoppel and because it will often be unfair to defendants." Id. Limiting the scope of the Boazd's inquiry is also contrary to the Colorado Administrative Procedure Act. Under that Act, evidence to be admitted in State administrative proceedings ` The use of collateral estoppel by the Division is non-mutual, while the use by the Tatums is mutual. -5-