# In Re the Nomination Petitions & Papers of Stevenson

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · March 26, 2012 · 615 Pa. 50

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9751472

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re the Nomination Petitions and Papers of Carl STEVENSON as a Candidate for State Representative in the 134th Legislative District. Appeal of Carl Stevenson
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 26, 2012
- **Citations:** 615 Pa. 50; 40 A.3d 1212; 2012 Pa. LEXIS 631; 2012 WL 987786
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Saylor
- **Judges:** Castille, Saylor, Eakin, Baer, Todd, McCaffery, Melvin
- **Cited by:** 92 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9751472

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- declining to extend Mendoza to a suit against a state governnient

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9751472. Public record. Not legal advice.