Pa. Cons. Stat. » 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. (JUDICIARY) / Chapter 7
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 721 (2026)

 Original jurisdiction.

✓ current as of May 2026
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.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

 

 

SUBCHAPTER B

JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT

 

Sec.

721.  Original jurisdiction.

722.  Direct appeals from courts of common pleas.

723.  Appeals from Commonwealth Court.

724.  Allowance of appeals from Superior and Commonwealth Courts.

725.  Direct appeals from constitutional and judicial agencies.

726.  Extraordinary jurisdiction.

727.  Special tribunal.

 

Cross References.  Subchapter B is referred to in section 701 of this title.

§ 721.  Original jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of all cases of:

(1)  Habeas corpus.

(2)  Mandamus or prohibition to courts of inferior jurisdiction.

(3)  Quo warranto as to any officer of Statewide jurisdiction.

 

Cross References.  Section 721 is referred to in section 761 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 58 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002). · cites it 2× “VII, § 2; 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 721 (1) (1981); R. I.”
Guarrasi v. Scott, 25 A.3d 394 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011). · cites it 4× ““The Supreme Court shall exercise general supervisory and administrative authority over all the courts.... ” PA. Const, art.”
Pub. Def.'s Off. v. Venango Cnty. Court of Common Pleas, 893 A.2d 1275 (Pa. 2006). · cites it 4× “[8] Finally, we note that this Court has original jurisdiction to entertain the writ pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 721(2), which specifies our jurisdiction over matters involving "prohibition to courts of inferior jurisdiction.”
Winklespecht v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 813 A.2d 688 (Pa. 2002). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to this Court's original jurisdiction, see 42 Pa.C.S. § 721(1), Winklespecht filed an application to file original process in this Court, and also filed his habeas corpus petition.”
In re Bruno, 101 A.3d 635 (Pa. 2014). · cites it 3× “42 Pa.C.S. § 721. Sections 722 through 725 describe the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction.”
Pridgen v. Parker Hannifin Corp., 905 A.2d 422 (Pa. 2006). “In the Superior Court, Appellees filed a motion to quash based on the interlocutory character of the common pleas court’s orders, and because Appellees had not complied with the procedural requirements for a permissive interlocutory appeal under Section 721(b) of the Judicial…”
Commonwealth v. Frattarola, 485 A.2d 1147 (Pa. 1984). · cites it 4× “42 Pa.C.S. § 721(2). The Superior Court, however, can issue such writs only to the extent that an action in prohibition or mandamus is ancillary to proceedings within the Superior Court's appellate jurisdiction.”
Sprague v. Casey, 550 A.2d 184 (Pa. 1988). “201(3), now 42 Pa.C.S. § 721(3), to determine whether the relator, who had been elected during the municipal election to fill the seat, was entitled to hold the office which was then being occupied by the appointee under Article V, section 13(b).”
Gary Lee Doctor v. Gilbert A. Walters, 96 F.3d 675 (3rd Cir. 1996). “Doctor argues, however, that he presented his Sixth Amendment claim to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in a separate, pro se petition brought pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 721 3 and filed on June 24, 1992.”
In re Act 147 of 1990, 598 A.2d 985 (Pa. 1991). · cites it 2× “Sobolevitch, Court Administrator of Pennsylvania, invokes this Court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, sections 2 and 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution (involving separation of powers), and 42 Pa.C.S. § 721(3) (involving quo warranto), 1 to seek a declaratory…”
Commonwealth v. Williams, T., 129 A.3d 1199 (Pa. 2015). · cites it 2× “10 As recognized by the Commonwealth, King’s Bench authority is generally invoked to review an issue of public importance that requires timely intervention by the court of last resort to avoid the deleterious effects arising from delays incident to the 9This Court’s original…”
Commonwealth, Dep't of Health v. Hanes, 78 A.3d 676 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013). · cites it 3× “§ 2777, and that his issuance of a marriage license is a “judicial act,” so that exclusive jurisdiction over the instant mandamus action lies with the Supreme Court under Section 721(2) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 721(2), as he is a “court[ ] of inferior jurisdiction,” 10…”
Show all 58 citing cases →
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 721(1) — 1 case
Winklespecht v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 813 A.2d 688 (Pa. 2002). “Pursuant to this Court's original jurisdiction, see 42 Pa.C.S. § 721(1), Winklespecht filed an application to file original process in this Court, and also filed his habeas corpus petition.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 721(2) — 21 cases
Pub. Def.'s Off. v. Venango Cnty. Court of Common Pleas, 893 A.2d 1275 (Pa. 2006). “[8] Finally, we note that this Court has original jurisdiction to entertain the writ pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 721(2), which specifies our jurisdiction over matters involving "prohibition to courts of inferior jurisdiction.”
Commonwealth v. Frattarola, 485 A.2d 1147 (Pa. 1984). “42 Pa.C.S. § 721(2). The Superior Court, however, can issue such writs only to the extent that an action in prohibition or mandamus is ancillary to proceedings within the Superior Court's appellate jurisdiction.”
Commonwealth, Dep't of Health v. Hanes, 78 A.3d 676 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013). “§ 2777, and that his issuance of a marriage license is a “judicial act,” so that exclusive jurisdiction over the instant mandamus action lies with the Supreme Court under Section 721(2) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 721(2), as he is a “court[ ] of inferior jurisdiction,” 10…”
Commonwealth v. Abdul-Salaam, 996 A.2d 482 (Pa. 2010).
In Re Admin. Order No. 1-Md-2003, 882 A.2d 1049 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 721(3) — 4 cases
Sprague v. Casey, 550 A.2d 184 (Pa. 1988). “201(3), now 42 Pa.C.S. § 721(3), to determine whether the relator, who had been elected during the municipal election to fill the seat, was entitled to hold the office which was then being occupied by the appointee under Article V, section 13(b).”
In re Act 147 of 1990, 598 A.2d 985 (Pa. 1991). “Sobolevitch, Court Administrator of Pennsylvania, invokes this Court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, sections 2 and 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution (involving separation of powers), and 42 Pa.C.S. § 721(3) (involving quo warranto), 1 to seek a declaratory…”
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Corbett v. Griffin, 946 A.2d 668 (Pa. 2008).
Com. of PA ex rel. A.J. Watson, DA v. K.N. Crosby (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 721(a) — 1 case
D. Williams v. Com. of PA DOC (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2024).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 721(b) — 1 case
Pridgen v. Parker Hannifin Corp., 905 A.2d 422 (Pa. 2006). “In the Superior Court, Appellees filed a motion to quash based on the interlocutory character of the common pleas court’s orders, and because Appellees had not complied with the procedural requirements for a permissive interlocutory appeal under Section 721(b) of the Judicial…”
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.