Richardson v. Peters, 19 A.3d 1047 (Pa. 2011). · Go Syfert
Richardson v. Peters, 19 A.3d 1047 (Pa. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: P.J. Begnoche, Sr. v. J. Molner, Business Mgr. DOC/SCI-Mercer (pacommwct, 2025-09-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) P.J. Begnoche, Sr. v. J. Molner, Business Mgr. DOC/SCI-Mercer
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 2025 · confidence medium
Because “the Clerk of Courts of the Court of Common Pleas of [Dauphin] County ‘is considered to be the Commonwealth government as a Commonwealth officer[,]’ . . . the Commonwealth Court [continues to have] jurisdiction” over Sites, Richardson v. Peters, 19 A.3d 1047, 1048 (Pa. 2011) (quoting In re Admin.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Dise, T. (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2023 · confidence medium
As stated above, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court “concluded that the Clerk of Courts of the Court of Common Pleas … ‘is considered to be the Commonwealth government as a Commonwealth officer’ and thus the Commonwealth Court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal brought by the Clerk of Courts from a trial court order.” Richardson v. Peters, 19 A.3d 1047, 1048 (Pa. 2011) (citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) A.J. Russo v. Allegheny County, and the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, PA, Criminal Division
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 2015 · confidence medium
Moreover, the General Assembly has defined the “Commonwealth government” in the Judicial Code to include “the courts and other officers or agencies of the unified-judicial system,” 42 Pa.C.S. § 102, and our appellate courts have relied on this definition in determining that original jurisdiction lies in this Court for civil actions filed against judges and officers of the courts of common pleas pursuant to Section 761(a)(1) of the Judicial Code. 6 See, e.g., Richardson v. Peters, 610 Pa. 365 , 19 A.3d 1047, 1047-48 (2011) (per curiam) (Clerk of Courts of the Court of Common Pleas of C…
cited Cited "see" R.A. Poplawski v. N. Marlier, Esq. & Michelle L.N.U., Employee
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Richardson v. Peters, 19 A.3d 1047 (Pa. 2011).
discussed Cited "see" Dodson v. Kehs (2×)
Pa. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Richardson v. Peters et. al., 610 Pa. 365 , 19 A.3d 1047 (2011).
cited Cited "see" Dodson v. Kehs
Pa. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Richardson v. Peters et. al., — Pa. -, 19 A.3d 1047 (2011).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Com. of PA v. G. Roberts, Jr.
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Commonwealth v. Parella, 834 A.2d 1253 , 1255 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). 3 other officers or agencies of the unified judicial system” and “the departments, board, commissions, authorities and officers and agencies of the Commonwealth”); see also Richardson v. Peters, 19 A.3d 1047, 1047-48 (Pa. 2011) (per curiam) (holding the county clerk of courts “is considered to be the Commonwealth government” under the Judicial Code).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." M. Morgalo v. S. Gorniak (SCI Albion Accountant) v. Montgomery County Clerk of Courts (2×)
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence low
He is, therefore, an officer of the Commonwealth government under Section 102 of the Judicial Code ....”); see also Richardson v. Peters, 610 Pa. 365 , 19 A.3d 1047 (2011) (holding that the Commonwealth Court erred by concluding that the common pleas clerk of courts was not a Commonwealth officer); Appeal of Troutman, 594 Pa. 346 , 936 A.2d 1, 7 (2007) (holding that a common pleas clerk of courts “is considered to be the Commonwealth government as a Commonwealth officer”).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Com. v. Fegley, R.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Art. 9, § 4; see also Richardson v. Peters, 19 A.3d 1047, 1048 (Pa. 2011), and the acts of a Clerk of Court are ministerial.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
David D. RICHARDSON, Appellant
v.
Teena A. PETERS, Clerk of Courts, Court of Common Pleas, Chester County, Pennsylvania; And John Wetzel, Secretary, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections, Appellees
66 MAP 2010.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Apr 28, 2011.
19 A.3d 1047
Per Curiam.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

[*366] ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 28th day of April, 2011, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is affirmed in part and reversed in part. We affirm the Order below insofar as the Commonwealth Court sustained the preliminary objections of the Department of Corrections and dismissed the Secretary of the Department of Corrections from the case.

The Commonwealth Court further concluded that the only unresolved claims in the case were those against Teena A. Peters, the Clerk of Courts of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County. The Commonwealth Court reasoned that it no longer had original jurisdiction over that aspect of the case because “[t]he clerk of a court of common pleas is not a Commonwealth officer.” See Commonwealth Court Opinion dated October 14, 2010 at 4. Thus, the Commonwealth Court transferred the remaining claims, including a pending motion for default judgment, to the Chester County Court of Common Pleas.

In reaching this conclusion, the Commonwealth Court cited 42 Pa.C.S. § 761, which addresses the bases for the Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction. Section 761(a)(1) provides in pertinent part that: “The Commonwealth Court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions or proceedings: ... (1) Against the Commonwealth government, including any officer thereof, acting in his official capacity____” 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(a)(1). The Commonwealth Court’s conclusion conflicts with In re Administrative Order No. 1-MD-2003, 594 Pa. 346, 936 A.2d 1, 7 (2007). In that case, this Court considered the provisions of 42 Pa.C.S. § 762, which sets forth the bases for[*367] the Commonwealth Court’s jurisdiction over appeals from the courts of common pleas. Section 762 states in pertinent part that the Commonwealth Court has exclusive jurisdiction of appeals from final orders of trial courts in “[a]ll civil actions or proceedings: ... (ii) By the Commonwealth government, including any officer thereof acting in his official capacity.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 762(a)(l)(ii). We concluded that the Clerk of Courts of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County “is considered to be the Commonwealth government as a Commonwealth officer” and thus the Commonwealth Court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal brought by the Clerk of Courts from a trial court order. 936 A.2d at 7 (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 102 (defining “Commonwealth government”) and Pa. Const. Sched. art. V, § 15 (designating the clerk of courts as an officer of the court or common pleas)).

Both Section 761 and Section 762 address claims involving “the Commonwealth government, including any officer thereof, acting in his official capacity....” This Court’s rationale in In re Administrative Order No. l-MD-2003 for designating a clerk of courts as a Commonwealth officer for purposes of Section 762 logically applies equally to Section 761. Accordingly, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is reversed to the extent that it transferred the remaining claims to the Chester County Court of Common Pleas on the basis that the Clerk of Courts of Chester County was the sole respondent; that a clerk of a court of common pleas is not a “Commonwealth officer”; and that the Commonwealth Court lacked original jurisdiction pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 761.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for proceedings consistent with this Order. Jurisdiction is relinquished.