Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
J.S. Ex Rel. H.S. v. Bethlehem Area School Districtgreen2 sentences2026Technical res judicata, which applies to claims that were actually litigated or could have been litigated, “requires the coalescence of four factors: (1) identity of the thing sued upon or for; (2) identity of the causes of action; (3) identity of the persons or parties to the action; and (4) identity of the quality or capacity of the parties suing or being sued.” J.S., 794 A.2d at 939 . 2018FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM THE PREVIOUS PAGE "[R]es judicata provides that where a final judgment on the merits exists, a future lawsuit on the· same cause of action is precluded." J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District, 794 A.2d 936, 939 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). "[R]es judicata requires the coalescence of four factors: (1) identity of the thing sued upon or for; (2) identity of the causes of action; (3) identity of the persons or parties to the action; and ( 4) identity of the quality or capacity of the parties suing or being sued." Id. | 2 | 6 |
M.A. Robinson v. Officer Fyegreen2 sentences2020“Res judicata, or claim preclusion, applies only when there exists a coalescence of four factors: (1) identity of the thing sued upon or for; (2) identity of the causes of action; (3) identity of the persons or parties to the action; and (4) identity of the quality or capacity of the parties suing or being sued.” Robinson, 192 A.3d at 1231 (quoting J.S. v. Bethlehem Area Sch. 2019Robinson v. Frye, 192 A.3d 1225, 1231 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (internal quotations omitted). | 1 | 2 |
Burke v. Pittsburgh Limestone Corp.green1 sentence2019See Burke v. Pittsburgh Limestone Corp., 100 A.2d 595, 598 (Pa. 1953). 5 Bethlehem Area Sch. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Henion v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
green
2 sentences2019Id. at 365-366 . 2006Id. | 3 | 2002–2019 |
Stilp v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2008Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.