Laserfiche WebLink
MCR' s argument again fails to address CDH' s point . CDH does not <br /> argue that the fact that two causes of action are based on stat- <br /> ute rather than common law, in itself, precludes the doctrine ' s <br /> application. CDH asserts that the fact that each NOV is dictated <br /> by statute means that the legislative intent reflected in those <br /> statutes, rather than the court ' s own view of the statutes ' mer- <br /> its, determines whether the doctrine should apply. <br /> This point is best expressed in Justice Souter ' s Opinion in <br /> the U.S. Supreme Court case of Astoria Federal Savings and Loan <br /> Association v. Soliminio, U.S. , 111 S. Ct . 2166 ( 1991 ) , as <br /> follows: - <br /> We have long favored application of the <br /> common-law doctrines of collateral estoppel <br /> (as to issues) and res judicata (as to <br /> claims) to those determinations of adminis- <br /> trative bodies that have attained final- <br /> ity. . . . Courts do not, of course, have <br /> free rein to impose rules of preclusion, as <br /> a matter of policy, when the interpretation <br /> of a statute is at hand. In this context, <br /> the question is not whether administrative <br /> estoppel is wise, but whether it is <br /> intended by the legislature. <br /> Astoria, 111 S. Ct. at 2169 (emphasis added) . <br /> should apply. MCR' s other case involves a collateral estoppel <br /> question. See George Lee Co. v. FTC, 113 F. 2d 583 ( 8th Cir . <br /> 1940) . In that case, the court expressly reserved judgment as to <br /> whether the government ' s second action could prevail if based on <br /> issues not already decided in the first action. Id. at 586 . As <br /> such, FTC does not support the application of the doctrine of res <br /> judicata in this case. <br /> -20- <br />