Opinion ID: 1379638
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The attorney general's argument as to collateral estoppel

Text: Insofar as the court's ruling on collateral estoppel is concerned, the attorney general argues that the court erred in concluding that the district and supreme courts actually and necessarily determined the legal sufficiency of the twenty-seven challenged provisions in Local 2238. The attorney general contends that only three of the twenty-seven provisions now before the court are similar to provisions of the highway department agreement challenged in Local 2238. Further, the attorney general argues, in our decision in Local 2238, we did not rule on the legal sufficiency of the provisions challenged in that case. Thus, there was no actual and necessary ruling on that issue that can now serve as the predicate for a finding of collateral estoppel. Because we did not issue a holding on legal sufficiency in the case on appeal, any ruling by the lower court on legal sufficiency cannot be conclusive in the case at bar.