M.d. Niedens, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Wayne Robbins, Robert P. Chaloupka, Thomas R. Brower, Joehuckfeldt, Defendants-appellees,andcentury Exploration; Century Exploration of Nebraska, Inc.;roy Reitz, D/b/a Roy Reitz & Associates; Colonial Statesmortgage; Arthur Madison; Steven Jones; Capital Guarantyfinancial Services Corporation; Jack Dubard; Charlesbruin; Horizon Mortgage & Investment, Inc.; Philip H.nicely, Defendants, 953 F.2d 1391 (10th Cir. 1992)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - 953 F.2d 1391 (10th Cir. 1992) Jan. 28, 1992

Before STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, TACHA and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

TACHA, Circuit Judge.


Appellant M.D. Niedens appeals an order of the district court dismissing one of his claims on the basis of res judicata and granting summary judgment in favor of the appellees on the other claim. On appeal, Niedens contends that the district court erred in its application of res judicata and improperly granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

On August 24, 1978, Wayne Robbins on behalf of Century Exploration, a partnership consisting of the appellees, contacted M.D. Niedens for the purpose of obtaining an oil and gas lease on Niedens' property. As an inducement for the lease, Niedens claims that the appellees agreed to loan him $900,000. Niedens asserts that the appellees failed to advance the balance of the loan money, causing him substantial damage.

On April 30, 1985, the district court found that Niedens' claims were barred by res judicata because Niedens had the opportunity to litigate these claims in an earlier state court action. On April 5, 1989, the district court denied Niedens' motion to reconsider its order of April 30, 1985 based on new evidence. On February 12, 1991, the district court granted summary judgment with respect to Niedens' remaining claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.

We AFFIRM for substantially the reasons given by the district court.

 *

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir.R. 36.3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.