Opinion ID: 480354
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: appeared and submitted a brief as amicus in the [State] Supreme Court;

Text: 34 (6) directed the filing of a notice of appeal to [the United States Supreme] Court; and 35 (7) effectuated [the state court plaintiff's] abandonment of that appeal on advice of the Solicitor General. 36 Id. In the state suit that preceded this case, the Secretary played none of these controlling roles. The fact that she was sufficiently satisfied with the probative value of the state court proceeding to submit its transcript as evidence in the PRRB hearing does not, at least not without certain proof of the Montana indicia just enumerated, prove plainly [that the Secretary] had a sufficient 'laboring oar' in the conduct of state court litigation to actuate principles of estoppel. 27 Id. (quoting Drummond v. United States, 324 U.S. 316, 318, 65 S.Ct. 659, 660, 89 L.Ed. 969 (1945)). We therefore agree with the PRRB and the district court 28 that the state court findings in the Blue Cross-Monsour Medical Center suit should not be given legally preclusive effect in this federal action. 29