Cantarella v. Department of Corrections
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
1Dissent
DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge FRIEDMAN.
I respectfully dissent. The majority agrees with the Department of Corrections (Department) that the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not preclude the Department from re-litigating issues of law and fact in this Act 6321 proceeding that already had been decided in the prior workers’ compensation proceeding. Unlike the majority, I cannot agree with the Department.
The doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, prevents the re-litigation of issues of law or fact in a subsequent action when the following factors are demonstrated: (1) the issue…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Martin v. Ketchum, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
- Yonkers v. Donora BoroughCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- City of Pittsburgh v. LoganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Roman v. Department of CorrectionsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Benginia v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.