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.
20 Pennsylvania opinions name it 4 courts 1979–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mariano, W. v. Rhodes, A.green2 sentences2025“It is axiomatic that if a local rule conflicts with a statewide rule of procedure, the local rule is invalid.” Mariano v. Rhodes, 270 A.3d 521, 527 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation omitted). 2025Moreover, pursuant to Rule 205.2, “[n]o pleading or other legal paper that complies with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure shall be refused for filing by the prothonotary based on a requirement of a local rule of civil procedure or judicial administration . . ..” Pa.R.C.P. 205.2; see also Mariano, 270 A.3d at 527 (holding that the prothonotary may not reject a filing based on non-compliance with a local rule when the filing complies with a statewide rule of civil procedure). | 3 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Valentingreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Devers, 519 Pa. 88 , 546 A.2d 12, 15-19 (1988) (criticizing Superior Court's requirements for punctilious adherence to technicalities of sentencing that developed from line of cases commencing with Commonwealth v. Valentin, 259 Pa.Super. 496 , 393 A.2d 935 (1978), in which Superior Court affirmed sentence while articulating rule that sentencing judge must make his reasons clear, have accurate information, including presentence report where required, and consider defendant’s character and particular circumstances of offense in arriving at individual sentence, and Comm 2014See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Devers, 519 Pa. 88 , 546 A.2d 12, 15-19 (1988) (criticizing Superior Court's requirements for punctilious adherence to technicalities of sentencing that developed from line of cases commencing with Commonwealth v. Valentin, 259 Pa.Super. 496 , 393 A.2d 935 (1978), in which Superior Court affirmed sentence while articulating rule that sentencing judge must make his reasons clear, have accurate information, including presentence report where required, and consider defendant’s character and particular circumstances of offense in arriving at individual sentence, and Comm | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Deversgreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Devers, 519 Pa. 88 , 546 A.2d 12, 15-19 (1988) (criticizing Superior Court's requirements for punctilious adherence to technicalities of sentencing that developed from line of cases commencing with Commonwealth v. Valentin, 259 Pa.Super. 496 , 393 A.2d 935 (1978), in which Superior Court affirmed sentence while articulating rule that sentencing judge must make his reasons clear, have accurate information, including presentence report where required, and consider defendant’s character and particular circumstances of offense in arriving at individual sentence, and Comm 2014See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Devers, 519 Pa. 88 , 546 A.2d 12, 15-19 (1988) (criticizing Superior Court's requirements for punctilious adherence to technicalities of sentencing that developed from line of cases commencing with Commonwealth v. Valentin, 259 Pa.Super. 496 , 393 A.2d 935 (1978), in which Superior Court affirmed sentence while articulating rule that sentencing judge must make his reasons clear, have accurate information, including presentence report where required, and consider defendant’s character and particular circumstances of offense in arriving at individual sentence, and Comm | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Wicksgreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Devers, 519 Pa. 88 , 546 A.2d 12, 15-19 (1988) (criticizing Superior Court's requirements for punctilious adherence to technicalities of sentencing that developed from line of cases commencing with Commonwealth v. Valentin, 259 Pa.Super. 496 , 393 A.2d 935 (1978), in which Superior Court affirmed sentence while articulating rule that sentencing judge must make his reasons clear, have accurate information, including presentence report where required, and consider defendant’s character and particular circumstances of offense in arriving at individual sentence, and Comm 2014See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Devers, 519 Pa. 88 , 546 A.2d 12, 15-19 (1988) (criticizing Superior Court's requirements for punctilious adherence to technicalities of sentencing that developed from line of cases commencing with Commonwealth v. Valentin, 259 Pa.Super. 496 , 393 A.2d 935 (1978), in which Superior Court affirmed sentence while articulating rule that sentencing judge must make his reasons clear, have accurate information, including presentence report where required, and consider defendant’s character and particular circumstances of offense in arriving at individual sentence, and Comm | 2 | 2 |
Davison v. John W. Harper, Inc.green1 sentence2025Harper, Inc., 493 A.2d 732, 734-35 (Pa. Super. 1985) (holding that the trial court erred in dismissing post-trial motions because the moving party did not file an accompanying order for transcripts of testimony, in violation of local rule). - 10 - J-A03045-25 Furthermore, while the prothonotary must inspect documents that are sent for filing to ensure they are in the proper form, the power to reject such documents is limited to notifying the proper party that the document is defective so that the defect may be corrected through amendment or addendum. | 1 | 1 |
Santo v. Varanogreen1 sentence2025See id. at 714 (citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 1000 (stating procedures not specifically covered by Chapter 10 shall be governed by the relevant statewide rule)). | 1 | 1 |
Everhardt v. Akerleygreen2 sentences2022“It is axiomatic that if a local rule conflicts with a statewide rule of procedure, the local rule is invalid.” Everhardt v. Akerley, 665 A.2d 1283, 1286 (Pa. Super. 1995) (citations omitted). 2022“It is axiomatic that if a local rule conflicts with a statewide rule of procedure, the local rule is invalid.” Everhardt v. Akerley, 665 A.2d 1283 , 1286 (Pa. Super. 1995) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Walzackgreen1 sentence2018See Phila.Crim.R. 571. - 12 - J-S14025-18 545 (Pa. 1967) (stating “the purpose and necessity of an arraignment is to fix the identity of the accused, to inform him of the nature of the charges against him and to give him the opportunity of informing the court of his plea thereto,” citing 21 Am.Jur.2d, Criminal Law § 452 (1965)), overruled on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Walzack, 360 A.2d 914 (Pa. 1976).10 Regardless of whether a plea is required under the rule, a technical violation of a rule of criminal procedure does not result in dismissal in the absence of prejudice. | 1 | 1 |
Sanders v. Allegheny Hospital—Parkview Divisiongreen1 sentence2016See Pa.R.C.P. 239 (“Local rules shall not be inconsistent with any general rule of the Supreme Court or any Act of Assembly”); Sanders v. Allegheny Hospital-Parkview Div., 833 A.2d 179, 183 (Pa.Super. 2003) (“The proper inquiry in deciding the validity of a local rule is whether it is inconsistent with any rule promulgated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court or any statute.”). | 1 | 1 |
Ertel v. Patriot-News Co.green2 sentences1997Ertel v. Patriot-News Company, 544 Pa. 93, 99 , 674 A.2d 1038, 1041 (1996). 1997Ertel v. Patriot-News Company, 544 Pa. 93, 99 , 674 A.2d 1038, 1041 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
Nuttall v. Nuttallgreen2 sentences1995See also Murphy v. Armstrong, 424 Pa.Super. 424, 429 , 622 A.2d 992, 995 (1993); Stock v. Arnott, 415 Pa.Super. 113, 120 , 608 A.2d 552, 555 (1992); Nuttall v. Nuttall, 361 Pa.Super. 320, 324 , 522 A.2d 603, 604 (1987). 1995See also Murphy v. Armstrong, 424 Pa.Super. 424, 429 , 622 A.2d 992, 995 (1993); Stock v. Arnott, 415 Pa.Super. 113, 120 , 608 A.2d 552, 555 (1992); Nuttall v. Nuttall, 361 Pa.Super. 320, 324 , 522 A.2d 603, 604 (1987). | 1 | 1 |
Murphy v. Armstronggreen2 sentences1995See also Murphy v. Armstrong, 424 Pa.Super. 424, 429 , 622 A.2d 992, 995 (1993); Stock v. Arnott, 415 Pa.Super. 113, 120 , 608 A.2d 552, 555 (1992); Nuttall v. Nuttall, 361 Pa.Super. 320, 324 , 522 A.2d 603, 604 (1987). 1995See also Murphy v. Armstrong, 424 Pa.Super. 424, 429 , 622 A.2d 992, 995 (1993); Stock v. Arnott, 415 Pa.Super. 113, 120 , 608 A.2d 552, 555 (1992); Nuttall v. Nuttall, 361 Pa.Super. 320, 324 , 522 A.2d 603, 604 (1987). | 1 | 1 |
Stock v. Arnottgreen2 sentences1995See also Murphy v. Armstrong, 424 Pa.Super. 424, 429 , 622 A.2d 992, 995 (1993); Stock v. Arnott, 415 Pa.Super. 113, 120 , 608 A.2d 552, 555 (1992); Nuttall v. Nuttall, 361 Pa.Super. 320, 324 , 522 A.2d 603, 604 (1987). 1995See also Murphy v. Armstrong, 424 Pa.Super. 424, 429 , 622 A.2d 992, 995 (1993); Stock v. Arnott, 415 Pa.Super. 113, 120 , 608 A.2d 552, 555 (1992); Nuttall v. Nuttall, 361 Pa.Super. 320, 324 , 522 A.2d 603, 604 (1987). | 1 | 1 |
Rieser v. Glukowskygreen2 sentences1995Appellant alleges that Lebanon County’s Local Rule 7, which allows exceptions to be decided by the court on briefs only, conflicts with Pa.R.C.P. 1910.12(g), which requires the court to hear argument on exceptions. 1 It is axiomatic that “if a local rule conflicts with a statewide rule of *606 civil procedure, the local rule is invalid.” Rieser v. Glukowsky, 435 Pa.Super. 530, 541 , 646 A.2d 1221, 1226 (1994). 1995Appellant alleges that Lebanon County’s Local Rule 7, which allows exceptions to be decided by the court on briefs only, conflicts with Pa.R.C.P. 1910.12(g), which requires the court to hear argument on exceptions. 1 It is axiomatic that “if a local rule conflicts with a statewide rule of *606 civil procedure, the local rule is invalid.” Rieser v. Glukowsky, 435 Pa.Super. 530, 541 , 646 A.2d 1221, 1226 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
Corcoran v. Fiorentinogreen2 sentences1981See Corcoran v. Fiorentino, 277 Pa.Super. 256 , 419 A.2d 759 (1980) (Opinion per Hoffman, J.) and see Coffey v. Faix, 426 Pa. 421 , 233 A.2d 229 (1967). 1981See Corcoran v. Fiorentino, 277 Pa.Super. 256 , 419 A.2d 759 (1980) (Opinion per Hoffman, J.) and see Coffey v. Faix, 426 Pa. 421 , 233 A.2d 229 (1967). | 1 | 1 |
Coffey v. Faixgreen2 sentences1981See Corcoran v. Fiorentino, 277 Pa.Super. 256 , 419 A.2d 759 (1980) (Opinion per Hoffman, J.) and see Coffey v. Faix, 426 Pa. 421 , 233 A.2d 229 (1967). 1981See Corcoran v. Fiorentino, 277 Pa.Super. 256 , 419 A.2d 759 (1980) (Opinion per Hoffman, J.) and see Coffey v. Faix, 426 Pa. 421 , 233 A.2d 229 (1967). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tanglwood Lakes Community Ass'n v. Pike County Board of Assessment
green
2 sentences1996The Court recognized that the civil procedure rules were not applicable to tax assessment appeals and stated that, “in the absence of a statewide rule, or a local rule of court, ... the trial court has the inherent power in its sound discretion to permit or refuse discovery.” Id. 642 A.2d at 583 . 1996The Court recognized that the civil procedure rules were not applicable to tax assessment appeals and stated that, “in the absence of a statewide rule, or a local rule of court, ... the trial court has the inherent power in its sound discretion to permit or refuse discovery.” Id. 642 A.2d at 583 . | 2 | 1996–2007 |
Commonwealth v. Williams
green
1 sentence2016In Commonwealth v. Williams, 125 A.3d 425 (Pa.Super. 2015), this Court held that Philadelphia Rule 630(J), which allowed the Commonwealth only fifteen days to appeal from the Philadelphia Municipal Court’s suppression order, was void because it conflicted with the thirty-day appeal period outlined in Pa.R.Crim.P. 1005(c), a statewide rule that is specific to appeals from the Philadelphia Municipal Courts. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Davies v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
green
1 sentence2005Davies v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 865 A.2d 290 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
McGratton v. Burke
green
2 sentences2003Id.; Philadelphia v. Percival, 464 Pa. 308 , 346 A.2d 754 (1975); McGratton v. Burke, 449 Pa.Super. 597 , 674 A.2d 1095 (1996). 2003Id.; Philadelphia v. Percival, 464 Pa. 308 , 346 A.2d 754 (1975); McGratton v. Burke, 449 Pa.Super. 597 , 674 A.2d 1095 (1996). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
City of Philadelphia v. Percival
neutral
2 sentences2003Id.; Philadelphia v. Percival, 464 Pa. 308 , 346 A.2d 754 (1975); McGratton v. Burke, 449 Pa.Super. 597 , 674 A.2d 1095 (1996). 2003Id.; Philadelphia v. Percival, 464 Pa. 308 , 346 A.2d 754 (1975); McGratton v. Burke, 449 Pa.Super. 597 , 674 A.2d 1095 (1996). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Stringer v. Kaytes
green
2 sentences1982The Stringer court held that because Pa.R.C.P. 236 is a statewide rule of general application, its notice requirement is implicit in all rules of court authorizing “the entry of any order, decree or judgment.” 286 Pa.Super. at 556 , 429 A.2d at 662 . . 1982The Stringer court held that because Pa.R.C.P. 236 is a statewide rule of general application, its notice requirement is implicit in all rules of court authorizing “the entry of any order, decree or judgment.” 286 Pa.Super. at 556 , 429 A.2d at 662 . . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Mikita v. Bailey Homes, Inc.
green
2 sentences1982Counties possess authority to make rules for the operation of their own court system as long as such rules are not contrary to those promulgated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. 42 Pa.C.S.A. 323; Mikita v. Bailey Homes, Inc., 265 Pa.Super. 399 , 401 A.2d 1367 (1979). 1982Counties possess authority to make rules for the operation of their own court system as long as such rules are not contrary to those promulgated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. 42 Pa.C.S.A. 323; Mikita v. Bailey Homes, Inc., 265 Pa.Super. 399 , 401 A.2d 1367 (1979). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Gilkes v. Levinson
green
1 sentence1979The statewide rule specifically states the “court may, on motion, make an appropriate order ...” (Emphasis supplied.) To underscore the difference between “the court” and the prothonotary, the Supreme Court has stated that where there is a failure to respond to interrogatories, “Rule 4019(a) would apply and a default order could be entered only by the court but never by the prothonotary.” (Emphasis in original.) Hanchey v. Elliot Truck Brokerage Company, Inc., 421 Pa. 128, 135 , 218 A. 2d 722 (1966). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Leech v. Jones
green
1 sentence1979The statewide rule specifically states the “court may, on motion, make an appropriate order ...” (Emphasis supplied.) To underscore the difference between “the court” and the prothonotary, the Supreme Court has stated that where there is a failure to respond to interrogatories, “Rule 4019(a) would apply and a default order could be entered only by the court but never by the prothonotary.” (Emphasis in original.) Hanchey v. Elliot Truck Brokerage Company, Inc., 421 Pa. 128, 135 , 218 A. 2d 722 (1966). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.