In Re: ORDER AMENDING RULES 1901.3, 1901.6, 1905, 1910.4, 1910.7, 1910.11, 1910.27, 1915.3, 1915.4-4, 1915.7, 1915.15, 1915.17, 1915.18, 1920.13, 1920.15, 1920.31, 1920.33, 1920.75, 1930.1, 1930.6, 1953, AND 1959 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
674 Civil Procedural Rules Docket
| Pa. | Jan 5, 2018Background
- This document compiles and explains numerous Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure (Pa.R.A.P.) provisions and amendments governing applications, petitions, briefs, records, stays, transfers, and specialized appeals (e.g., juvenile placement; double‑jeopardy frivolousness).
- New and emphasized Public Access Policy compliance (Pa.R.A.P. 127) requires certification of handling confidential information/documents on filings and affects reproduced records, briefs, petitions, and many applications.
- Rule 123 governs applications for relief (content, service, answers, verified factual statements, oral argument, single‑judge authority, and Public Access Policy certificate).
- Rule 531/Rule 752/related provisions set rules for amicus participation, transfers between intermediate appellate courts, and related brief timing/length/content and disclosure of funding/authorship.
- Substantial procedural detail for appellate filings: jurisdictional statements (Pa.R.A.P. 910), petitions for allowance/permission to appeal (Pa.R.A.P. 1115, 1312) including strict content and word‑limit rules, answers (1116, 1314), reargument (2544/2545), and standards for appeals from government units (1513, 1571).
- Record handling and timing: transmission of record (1931), reproduced and supplemental reproduced records (2152, 2156), government‑unit certified records (1952), and explicit rules on confidentiality labeling and separation of sealed/unredacted materials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mandatory Public Access Policy certification (Pa.R.A.P. 127) | Courts should require uniform certification and appropriate redaction/Confidential Information Forms to protect privacy while preserving access | The requirement may increase filing complexity and impose burdens on litigants and courts | Rule requires certification on specified filings; sealed records remain sealed on appeal absent court order |
| Amicus participation and disclosure (Rule 531) | Amicus should be permitted to file briefs of right in limited contexts and must disclose funding/authorship to ensure transparency | Limits (word counts, timing, need for leave) prevent undue burden and discourage duplicative filings | Amicus briefs are authorized as specified; statement of interest and funding/authorship disclosure required; strict length/timing rules apply |
| Content and form limits for petitions/briefs (Rules 910, 1115, 1312, 2111) | Tight word and form limits and required succinct statements focus the court on core issues and reduce burden of voluminous filings | Parties may argue limits risk excluding material that is important to review or make appellate practice more technical | Rules impose explicit content, order, and word/page limits; supplemental appendices allowed for voluminous materials; failure to comply can result in rejection/denial |
| Record transmission and handling of confidential/sealed materials (Rules 1931, 2152, 2156, 1952) | Clear timelines and labeling protect the appellate process and ensure records are complete and appropriately segregated for confidentiality | Practical difficulties (bulk exhibits, logistics of segregating sealed/unredacted versions) may complicate compliance | Record must be transmitted within set periods (generally 60 days; 30 for children’s fast track); confidential/unredacted materials must be identified and separated; omissions are treated as court processing breakdowns and corrected without penalizing parties |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Cotto, 753 A.2d 217 (Pa. 2000) (amicus may not raise unpreserved issues)
- Gossman v. Lower Chanceford Tp. Bd. of Supervisors, 469 A.2d 996 (Pa. 1983) (treatment of notices of appeal as petitions for allowance in certain cases)
- Xpress Truck Lines, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 469 A.2d 1000 (Pa. 1983) (same)
- O’Brien v. State Employment Retirement Board, 469 A.2d 1008 (Pa. 1983) (same)
- Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki, 522 A.2d 17 (Pa. 1987) (discretionary sentencing petitions procedure)
- Morrison v. Commonwealth, Dept. of Public Welfare, 646 A.2d 565 (Pa. 1994) (distinguishing scope and standard of review)
- Commonwealth v. Orie, 22 A.3d 1021 (Pa. 2011) (procedure for review of frivolousness findings under Pa.R.Crim.P. 587)
- Commonwealth v. Brady, 508 A.2d 286 (Pa. 1986) (double‑jeopardy frivolousness procedure)
- In the Interest of A.D., 771 A.2d 45 (Pa. Super. 2001) (standard of review—abuse of discretion—for juvenile dispositional orders)