Coverage note: this corpus holds the
consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check
palegis.us.
§ 5410. Communication between courts.
(a) General rule.--A court of this Commonwealth may communicate with a court in another state concerning
a proceeding arising under this chapter.
(b) Participation of parties.--The court may allow the parties to participate in the communication. If the parties
are not able to participate in the communication, they must be given the opportunity
to present facts and legal arguments before a decision on jurisdiction is made.
(c) Matters of cooperation between courts.--Communication between courts on schedules, calendars, court records and similar matters
may occur without informing the parties. A record need not be made of the communication.
(d) Record.--Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c), a record must be made of a communication
under this section. The parties must be informed promptly of the communication and
granted access to the record.
(e) Definition.--As used in this section, the term "record" means information that is inscribed on
a tangible medium or that is stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable
in perceivable form.
Cross References. Section 5410 is referred to in section 5203 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases, 2012–2020 · leading case:
J.C. v. K.C., 179 A.3d 1124 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
J.C. v. K.C., 179 A.3d 1124 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 2× “5 In sum, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by relinquishing jurisdiction to New York without permitting Father to submit information relevant to the § 5427(b) determination, or present facts and legal arguments pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 5410, in conjunction…”
M.E.V. v. R.D.V., 57 A.3d 126 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012).
· cites it 2× “Thus, it was incumbent upon the trial court to stay the Pennsylvania proceeding, contact the New Jersey courts in accordance with 23 Pa.C.S. § 5410, regarding communication between courts, 3 who would then have the opportunity to exercise or decline jurisdiction.”
C.C.W. v. M.R. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 5410. With respect to Section 5410(d), Father accurately asserts that the trial court did not inform the parties before communicating with the Circuit Court, did not create a record of the communication, and did not inform the parties of the communication before it…”
J.D.H. v. T.T. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 5410(a), (b). -5- J-A03019-20 Mother was the only witness to testify during the hearing, and she revealed as follows.”
T.w., Jr. v. A.A. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014).
“Did the [trial court] violate 23 Pa.C.S. Section 5410(d) by failing to create a record of its telephonic communications with -4- J-A24045-14 the New York Court following the conclusion of the last day of hearing on the issue of inconvenient forum? (Father’s Brief, at 4-5).”
P.S.K. v. D.K.K. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 5410 Uniform Law Comment (emphases added); see also § 2427, Inconvenient Forum (“[A] court of this Commonwealth shall consider whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction.”
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5410(a): 2 cases
J.C. v. K.C., 179 A.3d 1124 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
“5 In sum, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by relinquishing jurisdiction to New York without permitting Father to submit information relevant to the § 5427(b) determination, or present facts and legal arguments pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 5410, in conjunction…”
J.D.H. v. T.T. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 5410(a), (b). -5- J-A03019-20 Mother was the only witness to testify during the hearing, and she revealed as follows.”
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5410(d): 1 case
T.w., Jr. v. A.A. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014).
“Did the [trial court] violate 23 Pa.C.S. Section 5410(d) by failing to create a record of its telephonic communications with -4- J-A24045-14 the New York Court following the conclusion of the last day of hearing on the issue of inconvenient forum? (Father’s Brief, at 4-5).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.