# Burlington Northern Railroad Company v. Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., Ltd.

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · September 20, 1995 · 63 F.3d 1227

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9488453

## Case

- **Full name:** BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellee, v. HYUNDAI MERCHANT MARINE CO., LTD., Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** September 20, 1995
- **Citations:** 63 F.3d 1227; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 27159; 1995 WL 497251
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Becker, Scirica, Wood, Sloviter, Stapleton, Mansmann, Greenberg, Hutchinson, Cowen, Nygaard, Alito, Roth, Lewis, McKee, Sarokin
- **Cited by:** 143 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9488453

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that an argument is precluded when the issue argued is the same as that involved in the prior action, the issue was actually litigated and actually determined in a valid and final judgment, and that determination was essential to the prior judgment
- applying collateral estoppel to issues decided by partial summary judgment based on consideration of “whether the parties were fully heard, whether a reasoned opinion was filed, and whether that decision could have been, or actually was, appealed”
- explaining that denial of summary judgment can sometimes support collateral estoppel
- stating that offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel is subject to residual fairness determination by trial judge
- stating the general rule that an indemnity claim does not accrue until the indemnitee suffers a loss

## Opinion text

SUR PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING WITH SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING IN BANC
Sept. 20, 1995
The petition for rehearing filed by Appel-lees, having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the other available circuit judges in active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is DENIED.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9488453. Public record. Not legal advice.