Pa. Cons. Stat. » 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. (JUDICIARY) / Chapter 75
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7537 (2026)

 Remedy discretionary.

✓ 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

§ 7537.  Remedy discretionary.

The court may refuse to render or enter a declaratory judgment or decree where such judgment or decree, if rendered or entered, would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding, but as provided in section 7541(b) (relating to effect of alternative remedy), the existence of an alternative remedy shall not be a ground for the refusal to proceed under this subchapter.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Dep't of the Auditor Gen. v. Pennsylvania State Police, 844 A.2d 78 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dep't of the Auditor Gen. v. Pennsylvania State Police, 844 A.2d 78 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004). · cites it 4× “Section 7537 of the DJA, 42 Pa.C.S. § 7537. As indicated above, the Auditor General seeks a judgment declaring that the names, addresses and release dates of individuals registered with the PSP as sexual offenders under Megan's Law are not "investigative information" as defined…”
P.J.S. v. Pennsylvania State Ethics Comm'n, 669 A.2d 1105 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1996). · cites it 2× “42 Pa.C.S. § 7537 of the DJA provides in pertinent part that a court may refuse to render or enter a declaratory judgment where such judgment would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding.”
Rendell v. Pennsylvania State Ethics Comm'n, 938 A.2d 554 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007). · cites it 2× “Courts generally should refuse to grant requests for declaratory judgment where it would not resolve the controversy or uncertainty which spurred the request.”
Fid. Bank v. Pennsylvania Tpk. Comm'n, 444 A.2d 1154 (Pa. 1982). · cites it 2× “42 Pa.C.S. § 7537 (Emphasis added). [2] *97 The inclusion of the clause "the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding" clearly indicates that the existence of such a controversy or uncertainty is a primary and dominant factor, and as such a threshold question, in…”
Blackwell v. Pa. St. Ethics Comm., 556 A.2d 988 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1989). · cites it 2× “" 42 Pa. C. S. §7537; Allegheny Ludlum. Of course, even constitutional challenges to the validity of an agency's action must be pursued through the usual appellate process.”
Larry Pitt & Assocs., P.C. v. Butler, 785 A.2d 1092 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “" 42 Pa.C.S. § 7537. Thus, it has been recognized that this provision "[c]learly limits the discretion that can be exercised by a court in deciding whether to grant the remedy of a declaratory judgment.”
McCord v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Bd., 9 A.3d 1216 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010). “” 42 Pa.C.S. § 7537. As the Treasurer has standing to bring the petition for review, and the matter is ripe, this court concludes that a decree rendered by this court would terminate the uncertainty and controversy giving rise to this proceeding.”
Pub. Advocate v. Brunwasser, 22 A.3d 261 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011). “Appellees also fail to cite to any governing statute or local ordinance authorizing appeals to the trial court from PWD ratemaking decisions.”
Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1 v. Yablonsky, 867 A.2d 658 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005). “The Declaratory Judgment Act provides in pertinent part that courts “may refuse to render or enter a declaratory judgment or decree where such judgment or decree, if ren *663 dered or entered, would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding.”
Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 67 Pa. Commw. 400 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1982). “42 Pa. C. S. §7537. The respondents’ reliance on the standards expressed in MidCentre County Authority v.”
Spooner v. Sec'y of Pennsylvania, 539 A.2d 1 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1988). “” Section 7537 of the DJA, 42 Pa. C. S. §7537 provides that “[t]he court may refuse to render .”
Shovel Transfer & Storage, Inc. v. Simpson, 535 A.2d 251 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987). “Respondents direct us to Section 7537 of the Declaratory Judgments Act (Act), 42 Pa. C. S. §7537, wherein it is said that courts may refuse to grant declaratory relief where a judgment would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy in litigation.”
Show all 31 citing cases →
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.