The first trial of this case resulted in a jury verdict for defendant on all seven of plaintiff’s claims.  The trial court granted plaintiff a new trial on three of her claims.  The second trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff on all three of those claims.  This decision holds that the jury verdicts on the four claims that were resolved in the defendant’s favor at the first trial and not retried at the second trial cannot be given collateral estoppel effect so as to bar recovery on the three claims on which plaintiff prevailed at the second trial.  For a finding to be given collateral estoppel effect, a final judgment must be entered and the time for appeal must have run.  As there can be only one final judgment, none was entered until after the second trial resolved plaintiff’s final three claims.  The fact that plaintiff might have filed a protective cross-appeal as to those claims when defendant appealed the new trial order does not dictate any different rule as to the collateral estoppel effect of the jury findings on the four claims.