415 Pa. Super. 137 - Grant v. GAF Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

61 state decisions

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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Collateral estoppel is appropriate where: (1) the issue decided in the prior action 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 the plea is asserted has had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in question in a prior action.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 431 Pa. Super. 83 - Torchia v. Keystone Foods Corp. · 441 Pa. Super. 613 - Snyder v. Specialty Glass Products, Inc.

2. “Appellant argues, however, the issue presented to and decided by the referee was a narrowly defined statutory one, i.e., had appellant suffered an occupational disease injury. In light of our previous discussion, though, this argument is without basis. As we stated, the referee found unequivocally appellant’s injury was not work-related, and appellant had failed to sustain her burden of proof. This failure was grounded not in appellant’s inability to establish her sarcoidosis as an occupational disease injury, for her claim proceeded without that determination, but rather, in appellant’s inability to prove the causation of her injury was aggravated, accelerated or related in any way to her work for Xerox. This was the central issue in appellant’s workmen’s compensation claim, just as it is instantly, and appellant was afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue before the referee. As that judgment is now final, appellants are estopped from pursuing the identical issue in a common law tort action. To find otherwise would be to undermine the concept of workmen’s compensation which has served the workers and economic structure of our society so well.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 428 Pa. Super. 167 - Phillips v. A.P. Green Refractories Co.

3. “The doctrine of collateral estoppel is not unavailable simply because administrative procedures are involved; where the agency is acting in a judicial capacity and resolves disputed issues of fact which the parties had an opportunity to litigate, the court’s will not hesitate to apply preclusion principles. [T]he principles of collateral estoppel apply to judgments from worker’s compensation boards. The issue of causation, injury as a result of exposure in the workplace, was decided adversely to the plaintiffs in the workmen’s compensation proceeding and thus recovery in a subsequent tort action is precluded.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 428 Pa. Super. 167 - Phillips v. A.P. Green Refractories Co.