367 Pa. Super. 230 - Zarnecki v. Shepegi’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably 421 Pa. Super. 548 - Stidham v. Millvale Sportsmen's Club (1992), 440 Pa. Super. 195 - Estate of Pew (1994)
43 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Cromwell v. County of Sac · Mobil Alaska Pipeline Co. v. United States · United States v. International Building Co. · Bell v. Beneficial Consumer Discount Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The present state of the law [regarding the appealability of orders] is confusing to say the least. Our appellate courts have held that the failure to immediately appeal one of these misnomered ‘final and appealable orders’ results in a loss of the right to have the trial court action later reviewed. (Citations omitted.) This in and of itself invites cautious counsel, when faced with the difficult question of determining whether or not an order is ap pealable, to take an immediate appeal, delay the litigation at the trial level and further burden the appellate courts of Pennsylvania. Further, the application of the rule of ‘final and appeal-able’ is inconsistent. As an example, an order striking an affirmative defense raised in a new matter which alleges forgery of a document would be considered ‘final and appealable’ for interlocutory appeal purposes. However, a trial court’s ruling during trial disallowing expert testimony to establish the alleged forgery would not be ‘final and appealable’. In either event, the result to the litigant is the same and in both cases the review of the respective orders could be postponed until the conclusion of all activity at the trial court level. The law in this area, as I have said, is unclear to litigants and lawyers. A total re-examination and re-evaluation must be forthcoming so that these interlocutory appeals which are taken from misnamed ‘final orders’ would not be permitted.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“According to the rule of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion, when an issue of law is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment, the determination is conclusive in a subsequent action between the same parties, whether on the same or a different claim. Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 (1982); Clark v. Troutman, supra, [ 509 Pa. 336 ], 502 A.2d [137] at 139. “Unlike merger and bar (res judicata), which are applicable only when the same cause of action is asserted, collateral estoppel may apply in any subsequent litigation. On the other hand, collateral estoppel is applicable only to essential issues of fact which have been actually litigated.” In re Estate of R.L.L., supra [ 487 Pa. 223 ], 409 A.2d [321] at 324-4 n. 8. Accord: Schubach v. Silver, 461 Pa. 366 , 336 A.2d 328 (1975). [A] plea of collateral estoppel is valid if, 1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication was identical with the one presented in the later action, 2) there was a final judgment on the merits, 3) the party against whom the plea is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication, and 4) the party against whom it is asserted has had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the question of a prior action. In re Estate of R.L.L., supra, 487 Pa. at 228 , 409 A.2d at 323 -4 n. 8, quoting Safeguard Mutual Insurance Company v. Williams, supra [ 463 Pa. 567 ], 345 A.2d [664] at 668; Gulen”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) it is separable from and collateral to the main cause of action; (2) the right involved is too important to be denied review; and (3) the question presented is such that if review is postponed until final judgment in the case, the claimed right will be irreparably lost.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.