we are left with the inescapable conclusion that while the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the affiliation issue, it did not attempt to pass judgment on whether considerations involving the same constituted unconstitutional discrimination. Accordingly, since the federal constitutional issues present in the case sub judice were not addressed in Riverwalk’s appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, we cannot find that Riverwalk asserted the same claims as those that undergird the instant action. Since the first prong of the res judicata analysis cannot be satisfied, we decline the invitation to extend the doctrine to the determinations made by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in resolving Riverwalk’s appeal. See Chada v. Chada, 756 A.2d 39, 43 (Pa.Super.Ct.2000) (citations omitted) (<HOLDING>). With regard to collateral estoppel, that
holding that res judicata precludes relitigation of issue that was or could have been decided in enforcement order that was not appealed holding that ujnder res judicata or claim preclusion a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties  from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in the prior action holding that an order confirming a chapter 13 plan is res judicata as to all justiciable issues which were or could have been decided at the confirmation hearing holding that the essential inquiry in determining whether res judicata principles should apply is whether or not the ultimate and controlling issues have been decided in a prior proceeding in which the present parties had an opportunity to appear and assert their rights holding that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to defenses that could have been raised in a prior action