§ 708. Improvident administrative appeals and other matters.
(a) General rule.--No objection to a governmental determination shall be defeated by reason of error
in the form of the objection or the office of clerk of court in which the objection
is filed.
(b) Appeals.--If an appeal is improvidently taken to a court under any provision of law from the
determination of a government unit where the proper mode of relief is an action in
the nature of equity, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto or otherwise, this alone
shall not be a ground for dismissal, but the papers whereon the appeal was taken shall
be regarded and acted on as a complaint or other proper process commenced against
the government unit or the persons for the time being conducting its affairs and as
if filed at the time the appeal was taken.
(c) Other matters.--If a complaint in the nature of equity, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto or other
original process is commenced in any court against a government unit or one or more
of the persons for the time being conducting its affairs, as such, objecting to a
governmental determination by any of them, where the proper mode of relief is an appeal
from the determination of the government unit, this alone shall not be a ground for
dismissal, but the papers whereon the process against the government unit or any of
such persons was commenced shall be regarded and acted on as an appeal from such determination
of the government unit and as if filed at the time such process was commenced.
(d) Place of filing.--Section 5103 (relating to transfer of erroneously filed matters) shall also be applicable
to an appeal or other matter which is deemed to be filed or commenced under any provision
of this section.
(e) Single form of action.--Where pursuant to general rules review of a determination of a government unit may
be had by a petition for review or another single form of action embracing the appeal
and actions in the nature of equity, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto or otherwise,
the jurisdiction of the appellate court shall not be limited by the provisions of
1 Pa.C.S. § 1504 (relating to statutory remedy preferred over common law), but such
provisions to the extent applicable shall limit the relief available.
(Apr. 28, 1978, P.L.202, No.53, eff. 60 days)
1978 Amendment. Act 53 added subsec. (e).
Cross References. Section 708 is referred to in section 1722 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Hainsey v. Com. Pa. Liquor Control Bd. (1992)
pa · cites it 6×
“" Ostensibly on the basis that the order granting the continuance had not finally disposed of the litigation and thus was not a final order subject to appeal, the court regarded the petition as being governed by 42 Pa.C.S. § 708(b), which addresses disposition of "improvidently…”
Wortman v. Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations (1991)
pacommwct · cites it 4×
“However, if the trial court determines that Wortman made a proper request for further review, but that the commission has failed to comply with its duty, then the trial court, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 708(b), [2] should treat the appeal as if it were a complaint in a civil…”
Guarrasi v. Scott (2011)
pacommwct
“§ 708(c) (original process complaint challenging government unit determination treated as an appeal of that determination), this Court may treat Plaintiff's filing as an RTKL appeal from Defendant Devlin Scott’s final response to Plaintiff's appeal of his RTKL request to…”
Waters v. COM. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS (1986)
pacommwct · cites it 2×
“Having found that petitioners complaint is not a proper action in mandamus, we must now review the action in light of Section 708(c) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C. S. §708(c). Section 708(c) provides that where ah action is commenced in mandamus and is later determined not to…”
Stoner v. Township of Lower Merion (1991)
pacommwct · cites it 2×
“See 42 Pa.C.S. § 708. Moreover, because mandamus is appropriate here, where compliance is clear, the peremptory mandamus rule is available, as sought to be invoked by the landowners' Count II.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 708(a) — 14 cases
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 708(b) — 21 cases
Hainsey v. Com. Pa. Liquor Control Bd. (1992)
pa
“" Ostensibly on the basis that the order granting the continuance had not finally disposed of the litigation and thus was not a final order subject to appeal, the court regarded the petition as being governed by 42 Pa.C.S. § 708(b), which addresses disposition of "improvidently…”
Wortman v. Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations (1991)
pacommwct
“However, if the trial court determines that Wortman made a proper request for further review, but that the commission has failed to comply with its duty, then the trial court, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 708(b), [2] should treat the appeal as if it were a complaint in a civil…”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 708(c) — 26 cases
Guarrasi v. Scott (2011)
pacommwct
“§ 708(c) (original process complaint challenging government unit determination treated as an appeal of that determination), this Court may treat Plaintiff's filing as an RTKL appeal from Defendant Devlin Scott’s final response to Plaintiff's appeal of his RTKL request to…”
Waters v. COM. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS (1986)
pacommwct
“Having found that petitioners complaint is not a proper action in mandamus, we must now review the action in light of Section 708(c) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C. S. §708(c). Section 708(c) provides that where ah action is commenced in mandamus and is later determined not to…”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 708(d) — 2 cases
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 708(e) — 4 cases
In Re: Order Amending Rules 102, 105, 120, 121, 301, 313, 341, 502, 553, 701, 702, 901, 1311, 1312, 1316, 1323, 1501-150 (2020)
pa
In Re: Order Amending Rules 102, 105, 120, 121, 301, 313, 341, 502, 553, 701, 702, 901, 1311, 1312, 1316, 1323, 1501-150 (2020)
pa
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.