simple bright-line rule in Pennsylvania

2026Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011) (stating that “Rule 1925(b) sets out a simple bright-line rule, which obligates an appellant to file and serve a Rule 1925(b) statement, when so ordered; any issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived”), and Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005) (same)); see also Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998) (“Any issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived.”).

2025“Our jurisprudence is clear and well-settled, and firmly establishes that: Rule 1925(b) sets out a simple bright-line rule, which obligates an appellant to file and serve a Rule 1925(b) statement, when so ordered; any issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived[.]” Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011).

2026Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011) (stating that “Rule 1925(b) sets out a simple bright-line rule, which obligates an appellant to file and serve a Rule 1925(b) statement, when so ordered; any issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived”), and Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005) (same)); see also Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998) (“Any issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived.”).

2022We yet again repeat the principle first stated in [Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998),] that must be applied here: “[I]n order to preserve their claims for appellate review, [a]ppellants must comply whenever the trial court orders them to file a Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

2021In North Coventry Township. v. Tripodi (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 851 C.D. 2017, filed June 4, 2018), slip op. at 9-10, WL 2470645, at *4, we stated: “[Pa. R.A.P.] 1925(b) sets out a simple bright-line rule, which obligates an appellant to file and serve a [Pa. R.A.P.] 1925(b) statement, when so ordered . . . .” [Com.] v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011) (emphasis added). “[F]ailure to comply with the minimal requirements of [Pa. R.A.P.] 1925(b) will result in automatic waiver of the issues raised,” even where granting relief has equitable appeal. [Com.] v. Schofield, 888 A.2d 771, 774 (Pa. 2005).

2020Our supreme court has long recognized that “Rule 1925(b) sets out a simple bright-line rule, which obligates an appellant to file and serve a Rule 1925(b) statement, when so ordered; any issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived.” Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011); see also Commonwealth v. Schofield, 888 A.2d 771, 774 (Pa. 2005) (stating that “failure to comply with the minimal requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) will result in automatic waiver of the issues raised.”); Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (stating, “[i]ssues . . . not raised in accordance with the

2017Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011) (“Our jurisprudence is clear and well-settled, and firmly establishes that: Rule 1925(b) sets out a simple bright-line rule, which obligates an appellant to file and serve a Rule 1925(b) statement, when so ordered; any issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived; the courts lack the authority to countenance deviations -3- J-S10031-17 from the Rule’s terms; the Rule’s provisions are not subject to ad hoc exceptions or selective enforcement”); see also Dong Yuan Chen v. Saidi, 100 A.3d 587, 594 (Pa. Super. 2014) (“rule gov

2015With respect to Rule 1925(b), “[o]ur jurisprudence is clear -2- J-S04033-15 and well-settled, and firmly establishes that: Rule 1925(b) sets out a simple bright-line rule, which obligates an appellant to file and serve a Rule 1925(b) statement, when so ordered[.]” Dong Yuan Chen v. Saidi, 100 A.3d 587, 594 (Pa. Super. 2014), quoting Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011).

2015Commonwealth v. Elia, 83 A.3d 254, 263 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied, 94 A.3d 1007 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted) (waiving and declining to review Appellant’s claim for failure to include it in Rule 1925(b) statement).

2014Commonwealth v. Elia, 83 A.3d 254, 263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted).

2026Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011) (stating that “Rule 1925(b) sets out a simple bright-line rule, which obligates an appellant to file and serve a Rule 1925(b) statement, when so ordered; any issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived”), and Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005) (same)); see also Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998) (“Any issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived.”).

2025The Supreme Court has explained that requiring “a bright- line rule eliminates the potential for the inconsistent results that existed . . . when trial courts and appellate courts had discretion to address or to waive issues raised in non-compliant Pa.[]R.A.P. 1925(b) statements.” Accordingly, “the Rule’s provisions are not subject to ad hoc exceptions or selective enforcement[, and] appellants and their counsel are responsible for complying with the Rule’s requirements.” Bertino v. Tax Claim Bureau of Bucks County (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 705 C.D. 2022, filed December 12, 2023), slip op. at 7 (citat

2020“If [an appellant] wants to preserve a claim that the evidence was insufficient, then the [Rule] 1925(b) statement needs to specify the element or elements upon which the evidence was insufficient.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252, 1257 (Pa. Super. 2008) (emphasis omitted).

2014Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484 , 494 -settled, and firmly establishes that: Rule 1925(b) sets out a simple bright-line rule, which obligates an appellant to file and serve a Rule 1925(b) statement, when so ordered; any issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived; the courts lack the authority to countenance deviations from the Rule's terms; the Rule's provisions are not subject to ad hoc exceptions or selective enforcement; appellants and their counsel are responsible for complying with the Rule's requirements; Rule 1925 violations may be raised by the appellate cour

1997See also Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Lohner, 155 Pa.Cmwlth. 185 , 624 A.2d 792, 794 (1993).

1997See also Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Lohner, 155 Pa.Cmwlth. 185 , 624 A.2d 792, 794 (1993).

1997Unless there were valid medical reasons unrelated to his drinking that he could not perform, we have used the simple bright-line standard that a “licensee’s failure to supply a sufficient breath sample is a per se refusal.” Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Beatty, 143 Pa.Cmwlth. 272 , 598 A.2d 1069, 1070 (1991).

1997Unless there were valid medical reasons unrelated to his drinking that he could not perform, we have used the simple bright-line standard that a “licensee’s failure to supply a sufficient breath sample is a per se refusal.” Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Beatty, 143 Pa.Cmwlth. 272 , 598 A.2d 1069, 1070 (1991).