Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. International Market Place
Decision Date | 11 October 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 84-4417,84-4417 |
Citation | 773 F.2d 1068 |
Parties | FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. INTERNATIONAL MARKET PLACE, a limited partnership, Plaintiff in Intervention, v. Frank M. REED, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Cabot Chrisianson, Robert J. Bucklew, Foulds, Felker, Johnson & McHugh, Anchorage, Alaska, for plaintiff-appellee.
Daniel Westerburg, Birch, Horton, Bittner, Pestinger & Anderson, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendant-appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska.
Before CHOY, SNEED, and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.
Reed was convicted in federal court of destroying a building with the use of an explosive, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 844(i). His conviction was reversed because the government had failed to show that Reed used an explosive, as required under the statute. Fireman's Fund, the insurer of the building, brought this civil action against Reed for restitution. The district court granted summary judgment for Fireman's Fund. The court held that Reed was collaterally estopped from challenging his liability because the reversal of the conviction did not affect the validity of the jury's determination that Reed had destroyed the building. Reed appeals the district court's application of collateral estoppel. We REVERSE and REMAND.
Federal law governs the collateral estoppel effect of a federal case decided by a federal court. Blonder-Tongue Laboratories v. University of Illinois Found., 402 U.S. 313, 324 n. 12, 91 S.Ct. 1434, 1440 n. 12, 28 L.Ed.2d 788 (1971).
A determination adverse to the winning party does not have preclusive effect. United States v. Cheung Kin Ping, 555 F.2d 1069, 1076 (2d Cir.1977); cf. Ornellas v. Oakley, 618 F.2d 1351, 1356 (9th Cir.1980) ( ); 1B J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice p 0.416, at 518 (2d ed. 1984) (if the appellate court affirms on one ground used by the trial court without passing on a second ground used by the trial court, the second ground does not have preclusive effect); id. p 0.443[5.--1], at 781-83 ( ); but cf. id. p 0.416, at 517-18 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Guy
...preclusion would apply rather than the state standards of collateral estoppel or claim preclusion. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. International Market Place, 773 F.2d 1068 (9th Cir.1985); Freeman v. Lester Coggins Trucking, Inc., 771 F.2d 860 (5th Cir.1985). Cf. In the Matter of Energy Cooperat......
-
Mayer v. Bernalillo Cnty., CIV 18-0666 JB\SCY
...Found., 402 U.S. 313, 324 n.12 (1971); Meza v. Gen. Battery Corp., 908 F.2d 1262, 1265 (5th Cir. 1990); Fireman's Fund Ins. v. Int'l Mar. Place, 773 F.2d 1068, 1069 (9th Cir. 1985); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 87, at 314 (1982)("Federal law determines the effects under the rules of[......
-
Morgan v. Ward
...Construction Co. v. National Electrical Contractors Assn., 814 F.2d 358, 363-64 (7th Cir.1987); Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. International Market Place, 773 F.2d 1068, 1069 (9th Cir.1985). 9 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2202, a court rendering a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 may gran......
-
Clark v. Columbia/HCA Info. Servs.
...N.E.2d 369, 372 (1984). 34. See Nelson v. CSAA, 114 Nev. 345, 347-48, 956 P.2d 803, 805 (1998). 35. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Intern. Market Place, 773 F.2d 1068, 1069 (9th Cir.1985). 36. Clark v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., 966 F.2d 1318, 1320 (9th 37. See Pedrina v. Chun, 906 F.Supp. 1377,......