The United States Supreme Court case of United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co., 1965, revolved around the issue of whether a decision made by an administrative agency could be used as conclusive evidence in a subsequent legal proceeding. The court ruled that if an administrative agency has resolved disputed issues after conducting proper proceedings, these findings can indeed have preclusive effect in later litigation involving the same matters between the same parties. This principle is known as collateral estoppel or issue preclusion and prevents re-litigation of decided facts or questions. However, this would only apply if such determinations were essential to its decision and it had jurisdiction over both subject matter and parties involved.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co., it was argued that the Court had overstepped its bounds by deciding on an issue not presented in the original petition for certiorari, thus denying due process to both parties involved. The dissent further contended that there were no grounds to apply collateral estoppel as a defense because of significant differences between this case and previous cases involving similar issues. It was also pointed out that applying such a doctrine would be unfair given that administrative agencies do not have judicial powers and therefore should not be allowed to make final determinations on legal matters. Finally, it was suggested that allowing such use of collateral estoppel could potentially lead to abuse by administrative agencies who might seek to manipulate their findings in order to bind future courts.