Sprague, R., Aplts v. Cortes, P.
100 MAP 2016
| Pa. | Oct 25, 2016Background
- Appellants (Sprague, Castille, Zappala) challenged the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s phrasing of a November 2016 ballot question that would amend the Pennsylvania Constitution to raise the mandatory judicial retirement age from 70 to 75.
- Appellants filed in Commonwealth Court and immediately sought extraordinary plenary jurisdiction in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court under 42 Pa.C.S. § 726; this Court granted the application and set an expedited schedule.
- The Supreme Court was evenly divided on whether Appellants were entitled to relief; it entered a unanimous per curiam order on September 2, 2016 maintaining the status quo (i.e., denying the requested relief) and issued multiple non-precedential opinions explaining differing views.
- Appellants sought reconsideration and a remand to Commonwealth Court; the Supreme Court denied reconsideration by per curiam order on September 16, 2016 (with a dissent by Justice Todd joined by Justice Wecht).
- Appellants then refiled the identical challenge in Commonwealth Court on September 19, 2016. The Commonwealth Court dismissed that petition on res judicata grounds, holding the Supreme Court’s September 2 order was a final adjudication on the merits.
- Appellants appealed the Commonwealth Court dismissal to the Supreme Court; the opinion here (Justice Baer, joined by Justices Donohue and Mundy) would affirm the Commonwealth Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Supreme Court’s September 2 per curiam order was a final adjudication for res judicata | Sprague: A 4-3 deadlock meant no final merits adjudication, so res judicata does not bar relitigation in Commonwealth Court | Cortés: The per curiam order denied relief and is a final judgment that precludes relitigation | Held: The per curiam order was a final adjudication; res judicata bars the Commonwealth Court action |
| Whether Appellants can relitigate in Commonwealth Court after seeking and obtaining Supreme Court plenary jurisdiction | Sprague: Grant of jurisdiction did not produce a merits decision; remand is appropriate | Cortés: Seeking Supreme Court jurisdiction and final order removes right to relitigate below | Held: Having invoked Supreme Court plenary jurisdiction and received final order, Appellants forfeited relitigation below |
| Whether a tie among justices renders the Court’s order a nullity | Sprague: A deadlock produces no authoritative decision and thus no preclusive effect | Cortés: A tie that results in a per curiam order denying relief is binding and final as to parties | Held: A per curiam order entered after a deadlock is binding and final for preclusion purposes |
| Whether County of Berks controls (orders without opinion insufficient for res judicata) | Sprague: County of Berks suggests an order without opinion denying extraordinary relief is not a merits adjudication | Cortés: Distinguishes County of Berks because here Court granted plenary jurisdiction, full briefing, multiple opinions, and a final order disposing of claims | Held: County of Berks is distinguishable; the extensive litigation and final per curiam order here support res judicata |
Key Cases Cited
- Creamer v. Twelve Common Pleas Judges, 281 A.2d 57 (Pa. 1971) (when Supreme Court deadlocks in original jurisdiction, a per curiam order maintaining status quo is appropriate)
- Hartman v. Greenhow, 102 U.S. 672 (U.S. 1880) (an evenly divided court’s judgment is final and binding on the parties despite lack of majority opinion)
- Gov’t Employees Ins. Co. v. Ayers, 18 A.3d 1093 (Pa. 2011) (when Supreme Court affirms by deadlock, the status quo is maintained)
- County of Berks ex rel. Baldwin v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Bd., 678 A.2d 355 (Pa. 1996) (an order without opinion denying extraordinary relief is generally insufficient to establish a final adjudication for res judicata)
- Commonwealth v. Bomar, 826 A.2d 831 (Pa. 2003) (distinguishes precedential effect of plurality opinions from the binding nature of final orders)
- Safeguard Mut. Ins. Co. v. Williams, 345 A.2d 664 (Pa. 1975) (elements required for application of res judicata)