SUBCHAPTER D
APPEALS
Sec.
5571. Appeals generally.
5571.1. Appeals from ordinances, resolutions, maps, etc.
5572. Time of entry of order.
5573. Effect of application for rehearing.
5574. Effect of application for amendment to qualify for interlocutory appeal.
Cross References. Subchapter D is referred to in section 1722 of this title.
§ 5571. Appeals generally.
(a) General rule.--The time for filing an appeal, a petition for allowance of appeal, a petition for
permission to appeal or a petition for review of a quasi-judicial order, in the Supreme
Court, the Superior Court or the Commonwealth Court shall be governed by general rules.
No other provision of this subchapter shall be applicable to matters subject to this
subsection.
(b) Other courts.--Except as otherwise provided in subsections (a) and (c) and in section 5571.1 (relating
to appeals from ordinances, resolutions, maps, etc.), an appeal from a tribunal or
other government unit to a court or from a court to an appellate court must be commenced
within 30 days after the entry of the order from which the appeal is taken, in the
case of an interlocutory or final order.
(c) Exceptions.--
(1) Election cases.--The time for appeal from an order in any matter arising under the act of June 3, 1937
(P.L.1333, No.320), known as the "Pennsylvania Election Code," or any other statute
relating to registration or elections shall, if such statutes provide for a lesser
time for appeal, be governed by the appropriate provision of such statutes.
(2) Financing cases.--The time for appeal from an order in any matter arising under the act of July 12,
1972 (P.L.781, No.185), known as the "Local Government Unit Debt Act," or any other
statute relating to the incurring of debt by a government unit, shall if such statutes
provide for a lesser time for appeal, be governed by the appropriate provision of
such statutes.
(3) Probate matters.--The time for appeal from an order of a register of wills under Title 20 (relating
to decedents, estates and fiduciaries) shall, if such statute provides a greater time
for appeal, be governed by the appropriate provision of such statute.
(4) Execution matters.--The time for appeal from an order of any system or related personnel entered in connection
with enforcement of attachments, judgments or similar process or orders shall be governed
by general rule.
(5) (Deleted by amendment).
(6) Implied determinations.--When pursuant to law a determination is deemed to have been made by reason of the
expiration of a specified period of time after submission of a matter to a tribunal
or other government unit or after another prior event, any person affected may treat
the expiration of such period as equivalent to the entry of an order for purposes
of appeal and any person affected shall so treat the expiration of the period where
the person has actual knowledge (other than knowledge of the mere lapse of time) that
an implied determination has occurred.
(d) Interlocutory appeals.--A petition for permission to appeal from an interlocutory order must be filed within
30 days after its entry.
(e) Action following grant of permission to appeal.--The period limited by this section is tolled by the filing of a petition for permission
to appeal. If the petition is granted further proceedings in the matter, including
any time limitations, shall be governed by general rules or rules of court, and not
by the provisions of subsections (b) through (d).
(f) Cross appeals.--An appellee may be permitted by general rules or rules of court to take an appeal
within the time limited by rule from an order from which another party has taken a
timely appeal, notwithstanding the fact that the time otherwise limited by this section
has expired.
(Apr. 28, 1978, P.L.202, No.53, eff. 60 days; Oct. 5, 1980, P.L.693, No.142, eff.
60 days; Dec. 9, 2002, P.L.1705, No.215, eff. imd.; July 4, 2008, P.L.325, No.40,
eff. imd.)
Saved from Suspension. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure for District Justices No. 1082, as amended April
25, 1979, provided that section 5571(b), (c)(4) and (f) shall not be deemed suspended
or affected. Rules 1001 through 1082 relate to appellate proceedings with respect
to judgments and other decisions of justices of the peace in civil matters. Act 207
of 2004 changed justices of the peace to magisterial district judges. Rule 1082 can
now be found in the Rules of Conduct, Office Standards and Civil Procedure for Magisterial
District Judges.
References in Text. The act of July 12, 1972, P.L.781, No.185, known as the Local Government Unit Debt
Act, referred to in subsec. (c), was repealed by the act of December 19, 1996, P.L.1158,
No.177. The subject matter is now contained in Subpart B of Part VIII of Title 53
(Municipalities Generally).
Cross References. Section 5571 is referred to in section 7361 of this title; section 2547 of Title 15
(Corporations and Unincorporated Associations); section 8854 of Title 53 (Municipalities
Generally).
Notes of Decisions
Glen-Gery Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 907 A.2d 1033 (Pa. 2006).
· cites it 16× “1(a)(2), [1] or amended Section 5571(c)(5) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5571(c)(5), [2] controls the instant appeal and bars a procedural challenge to an ordinance as untimely if no challenge is mounted within thirty days of the "intended" effective date or, whether an…”
White Deer Twp. v. Napp, 985 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2009).
· cites it 20× “See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5571(c)(5) (deleted 2008) (prescribing that "questions relating to an alleged defect in the process of enactment or adoption of any ordinance.”
Schadler v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Weisenberg Twp., 850 A.2d 619 (Pa. 2004).
· cites it 10× “1(a)(2), 3 and section 5571(c)(5) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5571(c)(5), 4 each of which requires procedural challenges to the validity of a land use ordinance to be raised within thirty days of the ordinance’s effective date.”
Taylor v. Harmony Twp. Bd. of Commissioners, 851 A.2d 1020 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 10× “10 Conceding that he raised this procedural challenge to the validity of the advertising nearly 18 months after the stated effective date of Ordinance 335, and conceding that such challenges must be brought -within thirty days under Section 5571(c)(5), 42 Pa.C.S. § 5571(c)(5),…”
Luke v. Cataldi, 932 A.2d 45 (Pa. 2007).
· cites it 6× “2d 165, 168 (2000) (holding that a challenge to a zoning ordinance was not untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5571 because the ordinance never became effective, as it had not been recorded in the Township's ordinance book); Valianatos v.”
Mazur v. Trinity Area Sch. Dist., 926 A.2d 1260 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 10× “It determined that their challenges to the procedures used to pass the resolutions were untimely under 42 Pa. C.S. § 5571(c)(5). [8] Regarding the allegations of substantive defects in the TIF resolutions, the trial court concluded that "absent a determination that the…”
In Re Mun. Reapportionment of Tp., 873 A.2d 821 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 10× “Section 5571(c)(5) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5571(c)(5), gives an individual 30 days after the effective date of an ordinance to lodge a challenge to the process by which the ordinance was enacted.”
Luke v. Cataldi, 883 A.2d 1114 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 6× “The township acknowledged that none of its public notices included either the full text or a brief summary of the ordinance, nor did they designate a place where members of the public could examine the full text of the ordinance.”
Schadler v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 814 A.2d 1265 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 4× “1(a)(2) of the MPC and Section 5571(c)(5) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5571(c)(5). In opposition, Schadler contends that his challenge to Ordinance No.”
Merrell v. Chartiers Valley Sch. Dist., 855 A.2d 713 (Pa. 2004).
· cites it 6× “Appellant School District argues in its brief, and the Commonwealth Court held, *725 that the Local Agency Law, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5571, provides the time frame for challenging a decision like the April 28, 1999 letter from the School District which apprised appellee, William Merrell,…”
Cook v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 671 A.2d 1130 (Pa. 1996).
· cites it 2× “" 42 Pa.C.S. § 5571(a). It is at least arguable that since the appeal period is not entirely fixed by statute but also by action of the Court, the Court has inherent authority to provide for exceptions to the general rule of 30 days adopted in Pa.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571(a) — 22 cases
Cook v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 671 A.2d 1130 (Pa. 1996).
“" 42 Pa.C.S. § 5571(a). It is at least arguable that since the appeal period is not entirely fixed by statute but also by action of the Court, the Court has inherent authority to provide for exceptions to the general rule of 30 days adopted in Pa.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571(b) — 178 cases
Merrell v. Chartiers Valley Sch. Dist., 855 A.2d 713 (Pa. 2004).
“Appellant School District argues in its brief, and the Commonwealth Court held, *725 that the Local Agency Law, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5571, provides the time frame for challenging a decision like the April 28, 1999 letter from the School District which apprised appellee, William Merrell,…”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571(c) — 2 cases
Luke v. Cataldi, 883 A.2d 1114 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005).
“The township acknowledged that none of its public notices included either the full text or a brief summary of the ordinance, nor did they designate a place where members of the public could examine the full text of the ordinance.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571(c)(2) — 1 case
Luke v. Cataldi, 932 A.2d 45 (Pa. 2007).
“2d 165, 168 (2000) (holding that a challenge to a zoning ordinance was not untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5571 because the ordinance never became effective, as it had not been recorded in the Township's ordinance book); Valianatos v.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571(c)(5) — 34 cases
Glen-Gery Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 907 A.2d 1033 (Pa. 2006).
“1(a)(2), [1] or amended Section 5571(c)(5) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5571(c)(5), [2] controls the instant appeal and bars a procedural challenge to an ordinance as untimely if no challenge is mounted within thirty days of the "intended" effective date or, whether an…”
White Deer Twp. v. Napp, 985 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2009).
“See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5571(c)(5) (deleted 2008) (prescribing that "questions relating to an alleged defect in the process of enactment or adoption of any ordinance.”
Schadler v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Weisenberg Twp., 850 A.2d 619 (Pa. 2004).
“1(a)(2), 3 and section 5571(c)(5) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5571(c)(5), 4 each of which requires procedural challenges to the validity of a land use ordinance to be raised within thirty days of the ordinance’s effective date.”
Taylor v. Harmony Twp. Bd. of Commissioners, 851 A.2d 1020 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004).
“10 Conceding that he raised this procedural challenge to the validity of the advertising nearly 18 months after the stated effective date of Ordinance 335, and conceding that such challenges must be brought -within thirty days under Section 5571(c)(5), 42 Pa.C.S. § 5571(c)(5),…”
Mazur v. Trinity Area Sch. Dist., 926 A.2d 1260 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007).
“It determined that their challenges to the procedures used to pass the resolutions were untimely under 42 Pa. C.S. § 5571(c)(5). [8] Regarding the allegations of substantive defects in the TIF resolutions, the trial court concluded that "absent a determination that the…”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571(c)(6) — 6 cases
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571(d) — 2 cases
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571(f) — 1 case
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571(ib) — 1 case
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.