Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 724 (2026)

Allowance of appeals from Superior and Commonwealth Courts.

✓ 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

§ 724. Allowance of appeals from Superior and Commonwealth Courts.

(a) General rule.--Except as provided by section 9781(f) (relating to limitation on additional appellate review), final orders of the Superior Court and final orders of the Commonwealth Court not appealable under section 723 (relating to appeals from Commonwealth Court) may be reviewed by the Supreme Court upon allowance of appeal by any two justices of the Supreme Court upon petition of any party to the matter. If the petition shall be granted, the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction to review the order in the manner provided by section 5105(d)(1) (relating to scope of appeal).

(b) Improvident appeals.--If an appeal is improvidently taken to the Supreme Court under section 723 in a case where the proper mode of review is by petition for allowance of appeal under this section, 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 petition for allowance of appeal and as if duly filed at the time the appeal was taken.

(Oct. 5, 1980, P.L.693, No.142, eff. 60 days)

1980 Amendment. Act 142 amended subsec. (a).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 85 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Mercury Trucking, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 55 A.3d 1056 (Pa. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mercury Trucking, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 55 A.3d 1056 (Pa. 2012). · cites it 5× “C.S. § 510(d) from an order of the [Commission] and thereafter transferred to and decided in the Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction was “originally commenced” in the Commonwealth Court within the meaning of 42 Pa.”

Mohamed v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., 40 A.3d 1186 (Pa. 2012). · cites it 6× “§§ 763(a), (c), 933(a); and a right for either party to request leave to appeal the Commonwealth Court's decision to this Court, see 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 724(a), 723, Pa. R.A.P. 1112 (petition for allowance of appeal).”

Commonwealth v. Garcia, 43 A.3d 470 (Pa. 2012). · cites it 6× “Moreover, we concluded, "inasmuch as there is no `final order of the Superior Court' we find that the terms of this [C]ourt's jurisdictional statute, 42 Pa.C.S. § 724, are not met." Id. at 350-351 (observing that 42 Pa.”

Valley View Civic Ass'n v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 462 A.2d 637 (Pa. 1983). · cites it 2× “This Court is vested with jurisdiction pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 724(a). The Board did not join in Ms.”

McCutcheon v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 788 A.2d 345 (Pa. 2002). · cites it 3× “As a consequence, this court is also without jurisdiction, there being no final order from the Superior Court, as 42 Pa.C.S. § 724 requires. Accordingly, the Superior Court's order must be vacated and this appeal must be quashed.”

McCutcheon v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 788 A.2d 345 (Pa. 2002). · cites it 3× “As a consequence, this court is also without jurisdiction, there being no final order from the Superior Court, as 42 Pa.C.S. § 724 requires. Accordingly, the ■ Superior Court’s order must be vacated and this appeal must be quashed.”

Harkness v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 920 A.2d 162 (Pa. 2007). · cites it 2× “NOTES [1] Our Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 724(a). [2] As the issue before us involves a pure question of law, our standard of review is de novo and to the extent necessary, our scope of review is plenary.”

Com., Dep v. Cromwell Tp., Huntingdon Cty., 32 A.3d 639 (Pa. 2011). · cites it 3× “On November 4, 2009, we deferred the question of jurisdiction to the merits stage and directed the parties to brief the following three jurisdictional issues, in addition to the substantive claims Appellant Township sought to raise.”

Capinski v. Upper Pottsgrove Twp., 164 A.3d 601 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2× “Instead, the Supreme Court held that appeals from this Court’s decisions on enforcement petitions are by allowance under 42 Pa. C.S. § 724(a). The majority’s treatment of the Petition to Enforce as a common law action in mandamus invites confusion, particularly should some…”

Cimaszewski v. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 868 A.2d 416 (Pa. 2005). · cites it 2× “" [5] The Board may, in its discretion on case-by-case basis, exceed the maximum presumptive range in awarding back-time for parole violations, provided written justification is given and aggravating circumstances relied upon are supported by substantial evidence in record. 37…”

John Henry Casey v. Robert Moore, 386 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2004). “42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 724 (1992).” Hull v.”

Commonwealth, Dep't of Env't Prot. v. Cromwell Twp., 32 A.3d 639 (Pa. 2011). · cites it 3× “On November 4, 2009, we deferred the question of jurisdiction to the merits stage and directed the parties to brief the following three jurisdictional issues, in addition to the substantive claims Appellant Township sought to raise.”

Show all 85 citing cases →

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 724(a) — 40 cases

Mohamed v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., 40 A.3d 1186 (Pa. 2012). “§§ 763(a), (c), 933(a); and a right for either party to request leave to appeal the Commonwealth Court's decision to this Court, see 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 724(a), 723, Pa. R.A.P. 1112 (petition for allowance of appeal).”

Mercury Trucking, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 55 A.3d 1056 (Pa. 2012). “C.S. § 510(d) from an order of the [Commission] and thereafter transferred to and decided in the Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction was “originally commenced” in the Commonwealth Court within the meaning of 42 Pa.”

Valley View Civic Ass'n v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 462 A.2d 637 (Pa. 1983). “This Court is vested with jurisdiction pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 724(a). The Board did not join in Ms.”

Harkness v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 920 A.2d 162 (Pa. 2007). “NOTES [1] Our Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 724(a). [2] As the issue before us involves a pure question of law, our standard of review is de novo and to the extent necessary, our scope of review is plenary.”

Com., Dep v. Cromwell Tp., Huntingdon Cty., 32 A.3d 639 (Pa. 2011). “On November 4, 2009, we deferred the question of jurisdiction to the merits stage and directed the parties to brief the following three jurisdictional issues, in addition to the substantive claims Appellant Township sought to raise.”

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 724(b) — 6 cases

Commonwealth v. Passaro, 476 A.2d 346 (Pa. 1984).

Giovagnoli v. State Civil Serv. Comm'n, 868 A.2d 393 (Pa. 2005).

Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Human Relations Comm'n v. Scranton Sch. Dist., 507 A.2d 369 (Pa. 1986).

Brady v. Commonwealth State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 483 A.2d 1376 (Pa. 1984).

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.