considered as it would have if it had been necessary to the result, and in that sense it has some of the characteristics of dicta. Second, and of critical importance, the losing party, although entitled to appeal from both determinations, might be dissuaded from doing so because of the likelihood that at least one of them would be upheld and the other not even reached. If he were to appeal solely for the purpose of avoiding the application of the rule of issue preclusion, then the rule might be responsible for increasing the burdens of litigation on the parties and the courts rather than lightening those burdens. Compare Comment o, dealing with the ef- feet of an appellate decision based on alternative determinations. 2 . See, e.g., Halpern v. Schwartz, 426 F.2d 102 (2nd Cir.1970) (<HOLDING>); Herendeen v. United States Fidelity & Guar.
holding that to establish grounds for reversal an appellant must challenge all grounds on which the trial court ruled against it holding that a prior judgment resting on two or more independent alternative grounds is not conclusive as to issues which were necessarily found in order to establish only one of those grounds recognizing an appellee may assert additional independent grounds for affirmance of the judgment even if it does not file a notice of appeal as long as such grounds were raised in appellees motion for summary judgment holding where movant asserts several grounds in support of its summary judgment motion and the trial court does not specify the grounds on which judgment was granted the reviewing court can affirm the judgment if any of the grounds are meritorious holding that a dismissal on limitations grounds is a judgment on the merits