Pa. Cons. Stat. » 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. (JUDICIARY) / Chapter 83
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8303 (2026)

 Action for performance of a duty required by law.

✓ 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

§ 8303.  Action for performance of a duty required by law.

A person who is adjudged in an action in the nature of mandamus to have failed or refused without lawful justification to perform a duty required by law shall be liable in damages to the person aggrieved by such failure or refusal.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: Stoner v. Twp. of Lower Merion, 587 A.2d 879 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stoner v. Twp. of Lower Merion, 587 A.2d 879 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1991). · cites it 10× “Mandamus claim under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8303 for damages resulting from violation of a nondiscretionary duty; IV.”
Brown v. PA Dep't of Corr., 932 A.2d 316 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007). · cites it 4× “He also seeks judgment against DOC for damages for its failure to perform a duty required by law pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 8303. [1] In the context of respondent's motion for summary relief, the question to be determined is whether DOC's legal mail policy impermissibly infringes…”
Tindell v. Dep't of Corr., 87 A.3d 1029 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014). “5 42 Pa.C.S. § 8303. II. Petitioners have been housed at SCI Forest in the Restricted Housing Unit (RHU).”
Brown v. Levy, 73 A.3d 514 (Pa. 2013). “In addition to mandamus relief, appellee sought damages pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 8303 for physical and mental suffering because of the prothonotary’s failure to perform his duty as required by law.”
Richard Allen Prep. Charter Sch. v. PA, Dep't of Educ. & Pedro A. Rivera, in his Off. capacity as Sec'y of Educ., 161 A.3d 415 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017). “” 42 Pa.C.S. § 8303. “[A]ny claim for counsel fees by a successful plaintiff in a mandamus action should be awarded only after a consideration of the factors set forth in [Sjection 2503 [of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.”
Maurice a. Nernberg & Assocs. v. Coyne, 920 A.2d 967 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007). “Nernberg claims the trial court erred as a matter of law because Section 8303 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8303, entitles it to damages as a successful plaintiff in mandamus.”
KIPP Philadelphia Charter Schs. v. PA, Dep't of Educ. & Pedro A. Rivera, in his Off. capacity as Sec'y of Educ., 161 A.3d 430 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017). “” 42 Pa.C.S. § 8303. “[A]ny claim for counsel fees by a successful plaintiff in a mandamus action should be awarded only after a consideration of the factors set forth in [S]ection 2503 [of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.”
Madden v. Jeffes, 482 A.2d 1162 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1984). “Resolution of the immunity issue within a fuller context — at least with the pleadings completed —is particularly appropriate here because the money damages element of fhe claimed relief may require consideration of the applicability of 42 Pa. C. S. §8303, a question of first…”
Simmons v. Cohen, 534 A.2d 140 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987). “42 Pa. C. S. §8303. Petitioners argument is persuasive.”
City of Reading v. Feltman, 562 A.2d 926 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1989). “§ 8303, is directly relevant, and provides as follows: “A person who is adjudged in an action in the nature of mandamus to have failed or refused without lawful justification to perform a duty required by law shall be liable in damages to the person aggrieved by such failure or…”
Twp. of Marple v. Weidman, 613 A.2d 94 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1992). “Weidman then filed the instant action and sought counsel fees pursuant to Section 8303 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8303, which reads: A person who is adjudged in an action in the nature of mandamus to have failed or refused without lawful justification to perform a duty…”
City of Pittsburgh v. Commonwealth, 399 A.2d 141 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1979). “A substantial reenactment of that provision is found at 42 Pa. C.S. §8303, and states: A person who is adjudged in an action in the nature of mandamus to have failed or refused without lawful justification to perform a duty required by law shall be liable in damages to the…”
Show all 35 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.