stating this Court “was not incorrect in observing that the pronouncements of the lower federal courts have only persuasive, not binding, effect on the courts of this Commonwealth . . . ”
How later courts described this case
- stating this Court “was not incorrect in observing that the pronouncements of the lower federal courts have only persuasive, not binding, effect on the courts of this Commonwealth . . . ”
- acknowledging that while we are bound by decisions of the United States Supreme Court on federal law, "pronouncements of the lower federal courts have only persuasive, not binding, effect on the courts of this Commonwealth.”
- explaining that “judgments of the federal courts are owed their due force and full effect in state courts”
- recognizing that Morrill v. Weaver, 224 F.Supp.2d 882 (E.D.Pa.2002), is binding in this Commonwealth
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice SAYLOR,
concurring.
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s invocation of res judicata and collateral estoppel in the present case. Both doctrines depend, to some extent, on identity of a party or parties to the prior litigation, whereas such identity appears to be lacking here. My thoughts are more closely in line of those of the majority in terms of its discussion of federalism and comity, albeit I would add that the appropriate application of these principles to a given federal mandate may depend on the subject matter and particular circumstances involved. Here, however, I find the federal court’s rationale supporting its injunction to be fairly strong, and, in any event, I believe that impacted parties should be afforded judicial review in the federal courts, to the degree they might present a colorable challenge to an injunction imposed by the federal system. *74 Should such access be denied, I would certainly be willing to reconsider the approach to which I accede here.