Court Opinion

ID: 9749845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 13:57:39.871593+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:58.491149
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Judge Kramer:
I am in full accord with the majority’s statement of the law. My dissenting position can be simply stated that I believe the principle of collateral estoppel should *623be applied to this case before us for the reason that Judge McKenna, in his adjudication in the first case, stated very clearly “. . . we believe that in the case at bar it must be held that the municipality accepted permanent streets in 1948 and that the recent work constituted repairs(Emphasis added.)
This fact, having been determined by the court in its initial adjudication, precludes the municipality from rearguing it. The municipality should be prevented from circumventing this determination by merely changing labels in a subsequent ordinance. Once found by a court to be a “repair,” the law of this Commonwealth is that the municipality is responsible for the cost of same. See Erie’s Appeal, 305 Pa. 134, 157 A. 476 (1931).
Judge Blatt joins in this Opinion.