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.
8 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chada v. Chadagreen2 sentences2025See id.2 Both doctrines, however, bar a party from relitigating issues “that either were ____________________________________________ 2 Courts have commented that “[t]he doctrine of res judicata subsumes the doctrine of issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel.” Khalil v. Cole, 240 A.3d 996 , 1001–02 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citing Chada v. Chada, 756 A.2d 39, 42 (Pa. Super. 2000)). 2021This Court recently explained: The doctrine of res judicata subsumes the doctrine of issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel.[16] Chada v. ____________________________________________ 16 Collateral estoppel applies where these four elements are present: - 20 - J-A26002-20 J-A26003-20 Chada, 756 A.2d 39, 42 (Pa. Super. 2000). | 4 | 4 |
Khalil, A. v. Cole, B.green2 sentences2026Thus, res judicata in Pennsylvania encompasses issue preclusion and claim preclusion.” Khalil v. Cole, 240 A.3d 996, 1001 (Pa.Super. 2020) (citation omitted). 2025See id.2 Both doctrines, however, bar a party from relitigating issues “that either were ____________________________________________ 2 Courts have commented that “[t]he doctrine of res judicata subsumes the doctrine of issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel.” Khalil v. Cole, 240 A.3d 996 , 1001–02 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citing Chada v. Chada, 756 A.2d 39, 42 (Pa. Super. 2000)). | 2 | 2 |
Callowhill Center Associates, LLC v. Zoning Board of Adjustmentgreen2 sentences2024Fowler, 187 A.3d at 295 (citing Callowhill, 2 A.3d at 809 ). 2011See Callowhill Center Associates, LLC v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, City of Philadelphia, 2 A.3d 802, 809 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010). 8 . | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fowler v. City of Bethlehem Zoning Hearing Bd.
green
1 sentence2024Fowler, 187 A.3d at 295 (citing Callowhill, 2 A.3d at 809 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
City of Pittsburgh v. Zoning Board of Adjustment
green
2 sentences2010City of Pittsburgh v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 522 Pa. 44 , 559 A.2d 896 (1989). 2010City of Pittsburgh v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 522 Pa. 44 , 559 A.2d 896 (1989). | 1 | 2010–2010 |