To be “actually litigated,” the issue must involve “something more than having an issue ‘resolved’ as a result of some determinative legal doctrine that short-circuits the merits.” Kane, 254 F.3d at 329. The issue must have “been properly raised, submitted for determination, and necessarily determined by the earlier decision.” Wade, 460 F.Supp.2d at 240. That is not to say that an issue actually litigated must be explicit — the court may determine it was actually litigated if “logically or practically, a necessary component of the decision [was] reached in the prior litigation.” Grella v. Salem Five Cent Sav. Bank, 42 F.3d 26, 31 (1st Cir.1994) (citing Dennis v. R.I. Hosp. Trust Nat’l Bank, 744 F.2d 893, 899 (1st Cir.1984)); accord Stoehr v. Mohamed, 244 F.3d 206, 209 (1st Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). An issue has not been “actually litigated”
holding that where there was no evidence of the claimed underlying violation and where there were no unique arguments related to the chapter 93a claim defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs chapter 93a claim holding that summary judgment on chapter 93a claim is appropriate when summary judgment is granted on fraud claim and chapter 93a claim is solely based on the underlying claim for common law fraud holding that under the pre1986 jurisdictional limitation a claim by the state which discovered the fraud investigated the fraud disclosed the fraud to the federal government and which was the original source of the information was jurisdictionally barred holding that the issue of fraud was precluded because the previous jury necessarily considered fraud as the basis for chapter 93a liability holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud