Sprague, R., Aplts v. Cortes, P.
150 A.3d 17
| Pa. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Sprague and others) challenged ballot language proposing to raise mandatory judicial retirement age from 70 to 75, arguing it misled voters by failing to state it was increasing the mandatory retirement age rather than imposing it for first time.
- Plaintiffs originally sought extraordinary relief in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (Sprague I); the Court split 3–3 and issued a per curiam order stating it was "without authority to grant relief" and that the "status quo" would be maintained.
- After this Court declined to remand, Plaintiffs refiled the same constitutional challenge in the Commonwealth Court.
- The Commonwealth Court dismissed the refiling under res judicata, reasoning the Supreme Court’s prior per curiam order precluded re-litigation.
- Justice Todd (opinion in support of reversal, joined by Dougherty and Wecht) argues the per curiam order was not a merits decision and therefore has no preclusive effect; he would reverse and remand for adjudication on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sprague I's per curiam order bars Plaintiffs' subsequent Commonwealth Court suit under res judicata | Sprague: Per curiam order was a deadlock restoring status quo, not a final merits adjudication; res judicata therefore inapplicable | Cortés: The per curiam order functioned as a final denial of relief and thus precludes re-litigation | Justice Todd: Res judicata does not apply — per curiam order was non-merits deadlock/restoration of status quo; even a denial of extraordinary relief without opinion lacks preclusive effect under County of Berks |
Key Cases Cited
- Creamer v. Twelve Common Pleas Judges, 281 A.2d 57 (Pa. 1971) (deadlocked court must leave subject matter in status quo)
- County of Berks ex rel. Baldwin v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Bd., 678 A.2d 355 (Pa. 1996) (order denying extraordinary relief without opinion lacks res judicata effect)
- R/S Fin. Corp. v. Kovalchick, 716 A.2d 1228 (Pa. 1998) (res judicata bars later action only where prior final, valid judgment on merits)
- Hartman v. Greenhow, 102 U.S. 672 (U.S. 1880) (discussed regarding effect of split decisions, but distinguished for state res judicata purposes)