Reargument before an appellate court is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and reargument will be allowed only when there are compelling reasons therefor. An application for reargument is not permitted from a final order of an intermediate appellate court under: (1) the Pennsylvania Election Code; or (2) the Local Government’s Unit Debt Act or any similar statute relating to the authorization of public debt.

Official Note

The following, while neither controlling nor fully measuring the discretion of the court, indicate the character of the reasons which will be considered:

1. (1) Where the decision is by a panel of the court and it appears that the decision may be inconsistent with a decision of a different panel of the same court on the same subject.
2. (2) Where the court has overlooked or misapprehended a fact of record material to the outcome of the case.
3. (3) Where the court has overlooked or misapprehended (as by misquotation of text or misstatement of result) a controlling or directly relevant authority.

4. (4) Where a controlling or directly relevant authority relied upon by the court has been expressly reversed, modified, overruled or otherwise materially affected during the pendency of the matter sub judice, and no notice thereof was given to the court pursuant to Rule 2501(b) (change in status of authorities).

   The 1997 amendment clarifies that applications for reargument are not to be filed in matters arising under the Pennsylvania Election Code, the Act of June 3, 1937, P. L. 1333, 25 P. S. § § 2600—3591 or the Local Government Unit Debt Act, 53 Pa.C.S. § § 8001—8271. Matters involving elections and authorization of public debt require expeditious treatment. See, e.g., Rule 1113(c).

Source

The provisions of this Rule 2543 amended July 7, 1997, effective in 60 days, 27 Pa.B. 3503. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (115461) to (115462).