Laserfiche WebLink
A, <br /> The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an <br /> issue only if it was actually litigated and njecessarilY decided <br /> in the prior proceeding. To the extent that a trial court's <br /> findings and conclusions go beyond those necessary to a <br /> determination of the issues before it, they do not carry <br /> collateral estoppel effect on future litigation. American water <br /> Development Inc v CitX of Alamosa, 874 P.2d 352 (Colo. 1994) , <br /> cert. denied, U.S. �, 115 S. Ct. 575, 130 L.Ed. 2d 491 <br /> (1994) . <br /> in light of the order of dismissal, which the Division does <br /> not challenge, the trial court finding at issue here -- that <br /> equitable estoppel bars the Division from increasing its <br /> reclamation. Cost estimate and seeking recovery in excess of $3 <br /> million -- was unnecessary to a determination of the rights and <br /> liabilities of the parties in this action. Once the Court found <br /> that defendants had not violated any orders, its authority to <br /> grant relief under §34-33-123 (12) was at an end. <br /> Because it has not been shown that the trial court's finding <br /> as to equitable estoppel was necessary for determination of the <br /> motion for sumrilary judgment of dismissal, we conclude that this <br /> aspect of the court's ruling is unlikely to have a collateral <br /> estoppel or res 'udicata effect so as to have an impact on the <br /> future rights and liabilities of the parties. Thus, we find no <br /> basis for applying the exception to the mootness doctrine set <br /> forth in Super Tire Inc. v. cCorkle, saga. <br /> The appeal is dismissed. <br /> JUDGE JONES and JUDGE ROTHENBERG concur. <br /> 6 <br /> 60/60'd 9££# S£:ST ZZ-10`L661 8SSZ 998 E0£ '93s =8nas�8 -1d8n1dN: WOHA <br />