Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1993–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
ISN Bank v. Rajaratnamgreen2 sentences2023Further, despite the general prohibition on modifying orders after the appeal period has expired, courts have permitted modification under section 5505 in the following circumstances: extrinsic fraud; lack of jurisdiction over subject matter; fatal defect apparent on face of record; or some other evidence of “extraordinary cause justifying intervention by the court.” ISN Bank v. Rajaratnam, 83 A.3d 170, 172 (Pa. Super. 2013) (emphasis added). -6- Report and Recommended Orders, 7/28/21.6 Father filed exceptions on August 11, 2021. 2023Further, despite the general prohibition on modifying orders after the appeal period has expired, courts have permitted modification under section 5505 in the following circumstances: extrinsic fraud; lack of jurisdiction over subject matter; fatal defect apparent on face of record; or some other evidence of “extraordinary cause justifying intervention by the court.” ISN Bank v. Rajaratnam, 83 A.3d 170, 172 (Pa. Super. 2013) (emphasis added). 7 On December 4, 2018, the parties entered into an “Agreed Custody Order.” The order provided, in part: “The parties shall have shared legal custody[;] M | 6 | 6 |
Commonwealth v. Whitemangreen1 sentence2025Finally, Whiteman, noted section 5505 permits modification of orders “[e]xcept as otherwise provided or prescribed by law,” indicating section 5505 contemplates other sources of jurisdiction, whereas the PCRA explicitly states it is “the sole means of obtaining collateral relief and encompasses all other common law and statutory remedies for the same purposes[.]” See id. at 450-51 (emphasis added). -9- because there is no means for him to challenge his sentence, rendering the PCRA unconstitutional. | 1 | 1 |
Luckenbaugh v. Shearergreen1 sentence2019Extraordinary cause has been defined as "an oversight or action on the part of the court or the judicial process which operates to deny the losing party knowledge of the entry of final judgment so that the commencement of the running of the appeal time is not known to the losing party." Luckenbaugh v. Shearer, 523 A.2d 399, 401 (Pa. Super. 1987). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Boldengreen2 sentences2018See [Judicial Code,] 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 102, 722, 742, 5105(a), Pa.R.A.P. 341, and Commonwealth v. Bolden, [ 472 Pa. 602 , ] 373 A.2d 90 (Pa. 1977). [See Pa.R.A.P. 341.] An order entered by the clerk of courts under paragraph (D)(3) constitutes a ministerial order and[, as such,] is not subject to reconsideration or modification pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505 or Pa.R.A.P. 1701. 2018See [Judicial Code,] 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 102, 722, 742, 5105(a), Pa.R.A.P. 341, and Commonwealth v. Bolden, [ 472 Pa. 602 , ] 373 A.2d 90 (Pa. 1977). [See Pa.R.A.P. 341.] An order entered by the clerk of courts under paragraph (D)(3) constitutes a ministerial order and[, as such,] is not subject to reconsideration or modification pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505 or Pa.R.A.P. 1701. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Nicodemusgreen1 sentence2014See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Nicodemus, 636 A.2d 1118, 1120 (Pa. Super. 1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stockton v. Stockton
green
2 sentences2014While this Court has recognized an exception to section 5505’s 30-day period for modifications to correct clerical or other for *58 mal errors clear on the face of the record and which do not require an exercise of discretion, ISN Bank v. Rajaratnam, 83 A.3d 170, 172-73 (Pa.Super.2013) (citing Stockton v. Stockton, 698 A.2d 1334 , 1337 n. 3 (Pa.Super.1997)), that exception is not at issue here. 35 . 2014While this Court has recognized an exception to section 5505’s 30-day period for modifications to correct clerical or other formal errors clear on the face of the record and which do not require an exercise of discretion, ISN Bank v. Rajaratnam, 83 A.3d 170, 172-73 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citing Stockton v. Stockton, 698 A.2d 1334 , 1337 n.3 (Pa. Super. 1997)), that exception is not at issue here. - 109 - J-A16007-14 (1) Take such action as may be necessary to preserve the status quo, correct formal errors in papers relating to the matter, cause the record to be transcribed, approved, filed and tra | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Commonwealth v. Duncan
green
2 sentences1993Commonwealth v. Dunkin, 144 Pa. Commw. 261 , 601 A.2d 456 (1991). 1993Commonwealth v. Dunkin, 144 Pa. Commw. 261 , 601 A.2d 456 (1991). | 1 | 1993–1993 |