money judgment through the doctrine of collateral estoppel.” To support that proposition, the State cites Sopcak v. Northern Mountain Helicopter Services, 924 P.2d 1006, 1008 (Alaska 1996), in which the Alaska Supreme Court held that, under Alaska law, the doctrine of “[collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of a previously determined issue where the first action is brought in a federal court and a second action is brought in state court.” The United States counters that, even if issue preclusion applies, the Eleventh Amendment does not prohibit its third-party claim, because any “subsequent state court judgment for [Pjlaintiff based on the federal court findings ... would be simply an ancillary effect of the district court judgment.” Cfi Edelman, 415 U.S. at 667-68, 94 S.Ct. 1347 (<HOLDING>). Although the Supreme Court has not confronted
holding that eleventh amendment does not bar federal suit against state official for prospective injunctive relief holding that the eleventh amendment precludes an award of injunctive or declaratory relief that is not prospective in nature holding that judgments for prospective relief that have an ancillary effect on the state treasury do not offend the eleventh amendment holding that  106a  b offend the eleventh amendment recognizing that ex parte young allows claims that would have an ancillary effect on the state treasury where such an effect is the necessary result of compliance with decrees which by their terms were prospective in nature