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 1 courts 2000–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Maranc v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences2022Appeal Bd. (Bienenfeld), 751 A.2d 1196, 1199 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). 2019Appeal Bd. (Bienenfeld), 751 A.2d 1196, 1199 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). | 4 | 4 |
Wright v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen1 sentence2025We begin by observing that “the doctrine of res judicata encompasses two related, yet distinct, principles: technical res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion).” Boulin v. Brandywine Senior Care, Inc. (Workers’ 5 Our standard of review is “limited to determining whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether errors of law were made, or whether constitutional rights were violated.” Wright v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Larpat Muffler, Inc.), 871 A.2d 281, 284 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005). 4 Compensation Appeal Board), 307 A.3 | 1 | 1 |
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.green1 sentence2024See In re Stevenson, 40 A.3d 1212, 1223 (Pa. 2012) (quoting Plaut v. 5 Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 231 (1995)). 6 We have explained the doctrine of res judicata7 as follows: The doctrine of res judicata encompasses two related, yet distinct, principles: technical res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion). | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Nomination Petitions & Papers of Stevensongreen1 sentence2024See In re Stevenson, 40 A.3d 1212, 1223 (Pa. 2012) (quoting Plaut v. 5 Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 231 (1995)). 6 We have explained the doctrine of res judicata7 as follows: The doctrine of res judicata encompasses two related, yet distinct, principles: technical res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion). | 1 | 1 |
Cytemp Specialty Steel v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Crisman)green1 sentence2016Cytemp Specialty Steel v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Crisman), 39 A.3d 1028, 1034 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012); Maranc v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Bienenfeld), 751 A.2d 1196, 1199 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (en banc). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
PMA Insurance Group v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
green
2 sentences2024PMA Insurance Group v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Kelley), 665 A.2d 538 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). 2000PMA Insurance Group v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Kelley), 665 A.2d 538 (Pa.Cmwlth.1995). | 2 | 2000–2024 |
Temple University v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
green
1 sentence2008Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |