[brief] The final judgment in the companion case is sufficiently firm and deliberated, meeting the Restatement (Second) of Judgments §13 (1982) criteria, to be accorded preclusive effect in the present case.  In addition to the doctrine of collateral estoppel, this Court's adherence to the principle of stare decisis further mandates upholding [...]'s decision.  Stare decisis requires courts to follow established precedent in deciding cases with similar facts and legal issues.  This doctrine not only ensures consistency and predictability in the law but also reinforces the integrity and authority of judicial decisions.  [...]'s ruling in the companion case, which established the validity of Ordinances 5-23 and 7-23, is not merely a precedent but also a well-reasoned judicial determination that thoroughly examined the legality and public purpose of these ordinances.  By upholding this decision, this Court will be honoring the principles of legal stability and continuity that are central to stare decisis.  Moreover, deviating from this precedent without a compelling reason or significant change in circumstances would undermine the consistency that is essential to the legal system and could lead to uncertainty and erratic jurisprudence.  In light of the procedural history and facts presented, [...]'s decision aligns with the legal and factual context of this case.  It represents a judicious application of law to the circumstances surrounding the enactment and implementation of the Ordinances.  Upholding his decision would not only be in keeping with the principle of stare decisis but would also affirm the soundness of the legal process that led to the adoption of these Ordinances and the actions taken by the Township pursuant to them.  This Honorable Court, therefore, has a compelling obligation to uphold the validity of [...]’s decision, as veering away from this precedent would disrupt the legal certainty and predictability that stare decisis aims to preserve.  Such adherence is particularly pivotal in cases like the present one, where the legal framework and policy implications have far-reaching effects on public administration and governance.  It cannot be denied that the Appellant could have interceded in litigation before [...] which resulted in the affirmation and approval of the Ordinance that eventually spawned the acquisition of Appellant’s property.  It certainly knew about the litigation.  It is quoted in its trial brief (Pa43 see pages 2, 4, and 12).  It chose not to do so.  Therefore, we respectfully submit that it is too late for it to claim that it is not collaterally estopped as a result of [...]’s decision.  One simply cannot stand on the sidelines and choose not to participate in the game when they have the opportunity to do so, and then complain that your team lost the game because they didn’t play well enough.  As a result, we assert that the Appellant effectively but wrongly alleges a cause of action for which relief cannot be granted.  The adoption of the Ordinances authorizing the land exchange has been affirmed and found to be valid.  Therefore, Appellant does not have any realistic argument to persuade this Court to stop the Township from continuing to acquire the remaining lot which is the subject of the land exchange.