preclusion doctrine in Pennsylvania

7 Pennsylvania opinions name it 4 courts 1984–2026 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.

Followed or applied (4)

Case	Followed	Cited
Mariner Chestnut Partners, L.P. Ex Rel. Lamm v. Lenfestgreen pasuperct · 2016 · cited in 3 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2017–2026 2 sentences 2026Further, [u]nder both federal and Pennsylvania law, a central hallmark of the preclusion doctrine is that a prior judgment may bar relitigation only of a claim that has been decided “on the merits.” Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 , 326 n.5 [] (1979) (“[u]nder the doctrine of res judicata, a judgment on the merits in a prior suit bars a second suit []”); Mariner Chestnut Partners, L.P. v. Lenfest, 152 A.3d 265, 286 (Pa. Super. 2016) (“[u]nder the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction will bar any future ac 2024Under both federal and Pennsylvania law, a central hallmark of the preclusion doctrine is that a prior judgment may bar relitigation only of a claim that has been decided “on the merits.” Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 , 326 n.5 . . . (1979) (“[u]nder the doctrine of res judicata, a judgment on the merits in a prior suit bars a second suit . . .”); Mariner Chestnut Partners, L.P. v. Lenfest, . . . 152 A.3d 265, 286 (Pa. Super. 2016) (“[u]nder the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction will bar any future a	3	3
Morris v. US District Court Eastern Districtgreen pa · 2012 · cited in 2 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2017–2022 2 sentences 2022Chesterton, Inc., . . . 37 A.3d 1175, 1189-90 ([Pa.] 2012). 2017Chesterton, Inc., 614 Pa. 335 , 37 A.3d 1175, 1189-90 (2012).	2	2
Day v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaftgreen pa · 1983 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025Id., at 379 ; see also Day v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 464 A.2d 1313, 1318-19 (Pa. Super. 1983) (citations omitted) (same).	1	1
Jacoby Transport Systems, Inc. v. Continental Bankgreen pasuperct · 1980 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984 2 sentences 1984See, e.g., Jacoby Transports Systems, Inc. v. Continental Bank, 277 Pa. Super. 440 , 419 A.2d 1227 (1980); Thompson Maple Prod., Inc. v. Citizen’s Nat’l Bank, 211 Pa. Super. 42 , 234 A.2d 32 (1967); East Gadsden Bank v. First City Nat’l Bank of Gadsden, 50 Ala. App. 576 , 281 So.2d 431 (1973); Commercial Credit Equip. 1984See, e.g., Jacoby Transports Systems, Inc. v. Continental Bank, 277 Pa. Super. 440 , 419 A.2d 1227 (1980); Thompson Maple Prod., Inc. v. Citizen’s Nat’l Bank, 211 Pa. Super. 42 , 234 A.2d 32 (1967); East Gadsden Bank v. First City Nat’l Bank of Gadsden, 50 Ala. App. 576 , 281 So.2d 431 (1973); Commercial Credit Equip.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

Case	Cited	Years
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore green scotus · 1979 2 sentences 2026Further, [u]nder both federal and Pennsylvania law, a central hallmark of the preclusion doctrine is that a prior judgment may bar relitigation only of a claim that has been decided “on the merits.” Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 , 326 n.5 [] (1979) (“[u]nder the doctrine of res judicata, a judgment on the merits in a prior suit bars a second suit []”); Mariner Chestnut Partners, L.P. v. Lenfest, 152 A.3d 265, 286 (Pa. Super. 2016) (“[u]nder the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction will bar any future ac 2024Under both federal and Pennsylvania law, a central hallmark of the preclusion doctrine is that a prior judgment may bar relitigation only of a claim that has been decided “on the merits.” Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 , 326 n.5 . . . (1979) (“[u]nder the doctrine of res judicata, a judgment on the merits in a prior suit bars a second suit . . .”); Mariner Chestnut Partners, L.P. v. Lenfest, . . . 152 A.3d 265, 286 (Pa. Super. 2016) (“[u]nder the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction will bar any future a	3	2017–2026
Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. green scotus · 2001 2 sentences 2017For res judicata purposes, a judgment- on the merits- “is one that actually ‘pass[esj directly on the-substance of [a- particular] claim’ before.the court.” Semtek, 531 U.S. at 501-02 , 121 S.Ct. 1021 (interpolation in original;quoted citation omitted). 11 This has been the law of Pennsylvania for more than a century. 2017For res judicata purposes, a judgment- on the merits- “is one that actually ‘pass[esj directly on the-substance of [a- particular] claim’ before.the court.” Semtek, 531 U.S. at 501-02 , 121 S.Ct. 1021 (interpolation in original;quoted citation omitted). 11 This has been the law of Pennsylvania for more than a century.	1	2017–2017
Daley v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc. green pa · 2012 1 sentence 2017Chesterton, Inc., 614 Pa. 335 , 37 A.3d 1175, 1189-90 (2012).	1	2017–2017
Thompson Maple Products, Inc. v. Citizens National Bank green pasuperct · 1967 2 sentences 1984See, e.g., Jacoby Transports Systems, Inc. v. Continental Bank, 277 Pa. Super. 440 , 419 A.2d 1227 (1980); Thompson Maple Prod., Inc. v. Citizen’s Nat’l Bank, 211 Pa. Super. 42 , 234 A.2d 32 (1967); East Gadsden Bank v. First City Nat’l Bank of Gadsden, 50 Ala. App. 576 , 281 So.2d 431 (1973); Commercial Credit Equip. 1984See, e.g., Jacoby Transports Systems, Inc. v. Continental Bank, 277 Pa. Super. 440 , 419 A.2d 1227 (1980); Thompson Maple Prod., Inc. v. Citizen’s Nat’l Bank, 211 Pa. Super. 42 , 234 A.2d 32 (1967); East Gadsden Bank v. First City Nat’l Bank of Gadsden, 50 Ala. App. 576 , 281 So.2d 431 (1973); Commercial Credit Equip.	1	1984–1984
East Gadsden Bank v. First City Nat. Bank of Gadsden green · 1973 2 sentences 1984See, e.g., Jacoby Transports Systems, Inc. v. Continental Bank, 277 Pa. Super. 440 , 419 A.2d 1227 (1980); Thompson Maple Prod., Inc. v. Citizen’s Nat’l Bank, 211 Pa. Super. 42 , 234 A.2d 32 (1967); East Gadsden Bank v. First City Nat’l Bank of Gadsden, 50 Ala. App. 576 , 281 So.2d 431 (1973); Commercial Credit Equip. 1984See, e.g., Jacoby Transports Systems, Inc. v. Continental Bank, 277 Pa. Super. 440 , 419 A.2d 1227 (1980); Thompson Maple Prod., Inc. v. Citizen’s Nat’l Bank, 211 Pa. Super. 42 , 234 A.2d 32 (1967); East Gadsden Bank v. First City Nat’l Bank of Gadsden, 50 Ala. App. 576 , 281 So.2d 431 (1973); Commercial Credit Equip.	1	1984–1984

Where else courts name it

CA 61 (1978–2026) AL 26 (1981–2010) NY 26 (1969–2017) AZ 17 (1988–2025) IL 16 (1984–2025) MI 12 (1996–2025) WI 11 (1991–2023) NM 8 (1988–2024) VT 8 (2001–2025) DC 7 (1986–2019) VA 7 (2001–2014) PA 7 (1984–2026) CT 7 (1990–2026) LA 6 (1994–2025) OK 6 (2002–2020) ID 5 (1985–2026) TX 4 (1985–2016) KS 4 (2003–2022) NJ 4 (1989–2002) DE 4 (2010–2019) OH 4 (1984–2017) MO 4 (1984–2016) GA 4 (1990–2020) OR 3 (1992–2022) RI 3 (1989–2000) CO 3 (1989–2013) WA 2 (2009–2009) UT 2 (1997–1997) IN 2 (2006–2006) TN 2 (2013–2016) ME 2 (2021–2022) NC 2 (2000–2004) WV 2 (1991–1991) WY 2 (1995–2017) IA 2 (1994–1997) MA 2 (1979–1989)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check