Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cantarella v. Department of Corrections

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 14, 2003Published

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

  1. Martin v. Ketchum, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  2. Yonkers v. Donora BoroughCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  3. City of Pittsburgh v. LoganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  4. Roman v. Department of CorrectionsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  5. Benginia v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API