holding that collateral estoppel applies when the issue decided in the prior adjudication was identical with the one presented in the later action; there was a final judgment on the merits; the party against whom the plea is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication; and the party against whom it is asserted has had a full and fair opportuni ty to litigate the issue in question in the prior adjudication
How later courts described this case
- holding that collateral estoppel applies when the issue decided in the prior adjudication was identical with the one presented in the later action; there was a final judgment on the merits; the party against whom the plea is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication; and the party against whom it is asserted has had a full and fair opportuni ty to litigate the issue in question in the prior adjudication
- finding, without referencing Section 205 of the Restatement, that parties to an employment contract had to perform their contractual duties (relating to an internal review process) in good faith prior to a professor's forfeiture of tenure
- noting that it would be unreasonable to believe that an employment contract intended that a carefully elaborated procedure for termination of a tenured professor could be completely circumvented by the filing of a civil action
- explaining duty of good faith is “tied specifically to and is not separate from the duties a contract imposes on the parties”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice ZAPPALA,
Concurring.
I find that the resolution of the issues presented in this case is controlled by our decision in Baker v. Lafayette College, 516 Pa. 291 , 532 A.2d 399 (1987), and would affirm the order of the Superior Court on that basis. '