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.
9 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1967–2015 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ham v. Sulekgreen2 sentences2015See Ham v. Sulek, 620 A.2d 5, 8 (Pa. Super. 1993) (where parties have been afforded an opportunity to litigate a claim before a court of competent jurisdiction, and where the court has finally decided the controversy, the interests of the state and of the parties require that the validity of the claim and any issue actually litigated in the action not be litigated again). 2002Student cited the case of Ham v. Sulek, 422 Pa.Super. 615 , 620 A.2d 5, 8 (1993), for the proposition that res judicata applies only where a party has been "afforded an opportunity to litigate a claim.” (Student’s brief at 13.) There is no question that this is a correct statement of the law. | 5 | 5 |
Holz v. Holzgreen2 sentences2015Holz v. Holz, 850 A.2d 751, 757 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted); id. at 758 (applying determination that “[f]oreign judgments are entitled to full faith and credit so long as the foreign court had jurisdiction and the defendant had the opportunity to appear and defend” to res judicata between federal and state courts). 2015Holz v. Holz, 850 A.2d 751, 757 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted); id. at 758 (applying determination that “[f]oreign judgments are entitled to full faith and credit so long as the foreign court had jurisdiction and the defendant had the opportunity to appear and defend” to res judicata between federal and state courts). | 1 | 1 |
Scott v. Mershongreen2 sentences2004Scott v. Mershon, 441 Pa.Super. 551 , 657 A.2d 1304, 1306 (1995) (quotation marks and citations omitted). ¶ 13 There is no question that there is an identity of parties in both the federal and state court actions. 2004Scott v. Mershon, 441 Pa.Super. 551 , 657 A.2d 1304, 1306 (1995) (quotation marks and citations omitted). ¶ 13 There is no question that there is an identity of parties in both the federal and state court actions. | 1 | 1 |
Hebden v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences2002See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 83 (1982). [4] I note that "the term `res judicata' is a somewhat sloppy term and that it is sometimes used to cover both res judicata itself (claim preclusion) as well as collateral estoppel (`broad' res judicata or issue preclusion)." Hebden v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Bethenergy Mines, Inc.), 534 Pa. 327, 330 , 632 A.2d 1302, 1304 (1993). 2002See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 83 (1982). [4] I note that "the term `res judicata' is a somewhat sloppy term and that it is sometimes used to cover both res judicata itself (claim preclusion) as well as collateral estoppel (`broad' res judicata or issue preclusion)." Hebden v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Bethenergy Mines, Inc.), 534 Pa. 327, 330 , 632 A.2d 1302, 1304 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Bell v. Beneficial Consumer Discount Co.green2 sentences1985Realty, Inc. v. Cox, 472 Pa. 331, 337 , 372 A.2d 721, 724 (1977) (where order dismissing complaint with prejudice did not put litigant out of court because counter-claim had been filed, order held final because it had “practical ramification [of] ... completely depriving] the litigant of his day in court so far as his claim is concerned.”); Commonwealth v. Orsatti, 448 Pa. 72, 76 , 292 A.2d 313, 315 (1972) (where order dismissing preliminary objections with leave to amend complaint had practical effect of denying litigant an opportunity to litigate claim to damages, order held final because “a 1985Realty, Inc. v. Cox, 472 Pa. 331, 337 , 372 A.2d 721, 724 (1977) (where order dismissing complaint with prejudice did not put litigant out of court because counter-claim had been filed, order held final because it had “practical ramification [of] ... completely depriving] the litigant of his day in court so far as his claim is concerned.”); Commonwealth v. Orsatti, 448 Pa. 72, 76 , 292 A.2d 313, 315 (1972) (where order dismissing preliminary objections with leave to amend complaint had practical effect of denying litigant an opportunity to litigate claim to damages, order held final because “a | 1 | 1 |
T. C. R. Realty, Inc. v. Coxgreen2 sentences1985Realty, Inc. v. Cox, 472 Pa. 331, 337 , 372 A.2d 721, 724 (1977) (where order dismissing complaint with prejudice did not put litigant out of court because counter-claim had been filed, order held final because it had “practical ramification [of] ... completely depriving] the litigant of his day in court so far as his claim is concerned.”); Commonwealth v. Orsatti, 448 Pa. 72, 76 , 292 A.2d 313, 315 (1972) (where order dismissing preliminary objections with leave to amend complaint had practical effect of denying litigant an opportunity to litigate claim to damages, order held final because “a 1985Realty, Inc. v. Cox, 472 Pa. 331, 337 , 372 A.2d 721, 724 (1977) (where order dismissing complaint with prejudice did not put litigant out of court because counter-claim had been filed, order held final because it had “practical ramification [of] ... completely depriving] the litigant of his day in court so far as his claim is concerned.”); Commonwealth v. Orsatti, 448 Pa. 72, 76 , 292 A.2d 313, 315 (1972) (where order dismissing preliminary objections with leave to amend complaint had practical effect of denying litigant an opportunity to litigate claim to damages, order held final because “a | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. ORSATTI, INC.green2 sentences1985Realty, Inc. v. Cox, 472 Pa. 331, 337 , 372 A.2d 721, 724 (1977) (where order dismissing complaint with prejudice did not put litigant out of court because counter-claim had been filed, order held final because it had “practical ramification [of] ... completely depriving] the litigant of his day in court so far as his claim is concerned.”); Commonwealth v. Orsatti, 448 Pa. 72, 76 , 292 A.2d 313, 315 (1972) (where order dismissing preliminary objections with leave to amend complaint had practical effect of denying litigant an opportunity to litigate claim to damages, order held final because “a 1985Realty, Inc. v. Cox, 472 Pa. 331, 337 , 372 A.2d 721, 724 (1977) (where order dismissing complaint with prejudice did not put litigant out of court because counter-claim had been filed, order held final because it had “practical ramification [of] ... completely depriving] the litigant of his day in court so far as his claim is concerned.”); Commonwealth v. Orsatti, 448 Pa. 72, 76 , 292 A.2d 313, 315 (1972) (where order dismissing preliminary objections with leave to amend complaint had practical effect of denying litigant an opportunity to litigate claim to damages, order held final because “a | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Freeze v. Donegal Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences1985Realty, Inc. v. Cox, 472 Pa. 331, 337 , 372 A.2d 721, 724 (1977) (where order dismissing complaint with prejudice did not put litigant out of court because counter-claim had been filed, order held final because it had “practical ramification [of] ... completely depriving] the litigant of his day in court so far as his claim is concerned.”); Commonwealth v. Orsatti, 448 Pa. 72, 76 , 292 A.2d 313, 315 (1972) (where order dismissing preliminary objections with leave to amend complaint had practical effect of denying litigant an opportunity to litigate claim to damages, order held final because “a 1985Realty, Inc. v. Cox, 472 Pa. 331, 337 , 372 A.2d 721, 724 (1977) (where order dismissing complaint with prejudice did not put litigant out of court because counter-claim had been filed, order held final because it had “practical ramification [of] ... completely depriving] the litigant of his day in court so far as his claim is concerned.”); Commonwealth v. Orsatti, 448 Pa. 72, 76 , 292 A.2d 313, 315 (1972) (where order dismissing preliminary objections with leave to amend complaint had practical effect of denying litigant an opportunity to litigate claim to damages, order held final because “a | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Mandeville v. Canterbury
green
2 sentences1967Mandeville v. Canterbury, 318 U.S. 47 , 63 S. Ct. 472 (1943) ; see Kline v. Burke Construction Co., supra; 1A Moore, Federal Practice, supra. In the instant case, appellant, having timely filed her election to take against the will of the decedent, was entitled to notice' of the proceeding below and an opportunity to litigate her claim. 1967Mandeville v. Canterbury, 318 U.S. 47 , 63 S. Ct. 472 (1943) ; see Kline v. Burke Construction Co., supra; 1A Moore, Federal Practice, supra. In the instant case, appellant, having timely filed her election to take against the will of the decedent, was entitled to notice' of the proceeding below and an opportunity to litigate her claim. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
green
2 sentences1967Cf. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 , 70 S. Ct. 652 (1950). 1967Cf. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 , 70 S. Ct. 652 (1950). | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.