Pa. Cons. Stat. » 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. (JUDICIARY) / Chapter 9
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 951 (2026)

  Court divisions.

✓ 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 D

COURT DIVISIONS

 

Sec.

951.  Court divisions.

952.  Status of court divisions.

953.  Administrative judges of divisions.

§ 951.  Court divisions.

(a)  Philadelphia County.--The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County shall have the following divisions:

(1)  Trial division.

(2)  Orphans' court division.

(3)  Family court division.

(b)  Allegheny County.--The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County shall have the following divisions:

(1)  Civil division.

(2)  Criminal division.

(3)  Orphans' court division.

(4)  Family division.

(c)  Other separate orphans' court divisions.--The courts of common pleas of Beaver, Berks, Bucks, Cambria, Chester, Dauphin, Delaware, Erie, Fayette, Lackawanna, Lancaster, Lehigh, Luzerne, Montgomery, Schuylkill, Washington, Westmoreland and York counties shall each have a separate orphans' court division.

(d)  Judicial districts having no separate orphans' court division.--In each judicial district having no separate orphans' court division, there shall be an orphans' court division composed of the court of common pleas of that judicial district.

(e)  Change in size of divisions.--The number of judges constituting a division may be increased or reduced by order of the governing authority.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: Ball v. Minnick, 606 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ball v. Minnick, 606 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992). · cites it 2× “*252 These sections have all been superseded by the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 951, 952, which retains the essence of the above provisions.”
Carr v. Rose, 701 A.2d 1065 (D.C. 1997). “See Restatement (Seo-ond) of Judgments § 30(2). To the contrary, however, the Orphans’ Court is a court of general jurisdiction.”
Pittman v. Cont'l Airlines, Inc., 35 F. Supp. 2d 434 (E.D. Pa. 1999). · cites it 2× “and 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 951 et seq. 3. To the extent that Plaintiffs claims for disparate treatment under 42 Pa.”
McLaughlin v. Pernsley, 654 F. Supp. 1567 (E.D. Pa. 1987). “See 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 951, 952. The Family court division, contrary to plaintiffs’ suggestion, “is vested with the full jurisdiction of the whole court [Court of Common Pleas]____” 42 Pa.”
Brown v. Brown (In Re Brown), 331 B.R. 243 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 2005). “§ 931 (vesting Courts of Common Pleas with original jurisdiction in Pennsylvania); 42 Pa.C.S. § 951 (dividing jurisdiction of courts for more populous counties into separate family law courts; however, Northumberland County is not so divided).”
Koslow v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 158 F. Supp. 2d 539 (E.D. Pa. 2001). “, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 951 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.”
Dececco v. UPMC, 3 F. Supp. 3d 337 (W.D. Pa. 2014). “The defendant-employer’s proffered legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for firing the plaintiff was that the plaintiff pushed a coworker in violation of company policy.”
O'brien (E.D. Pa. 2025). · cites it 2× “42 Pa. C.S. § 951(c). 1 For purposes of this Motion, the Court accepts as true all factual allegations in the Complaint.”
Onely v. Redner's Markets, Inc. (E.D. Pa. 2023). “, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), 42 Pa. C.S. § 951, et seq., because of her race, sex, and perceived disability.”
Valentin v. Commonwealth of Pa. (E.D. Pa. 2024). “§ 2000e, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 951 - 963. See Valentin v.”
Clark v. Orphans Court Philadelphia (E.D. Pa. 2025). “Accordingly, the Court will consider the claims here as if they were alleged under § 1983. A. Claims Against the Orphans Court Clark has named the Orphans Court as a Defendant, which is a division of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia.”
In re: Pres. of FDR Park ~ R. Garella v. City of Philadelphia c/o Philadelphia Law Dept. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2025). “42 Pa. C.S. §951(a). These divisions were established “essentially for the purposes of administrative convenience.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 951(a) — 1 case
In re: Pres. of FDR Park ~ R. Garella v. City of Philadelphia c/o Philadelphia Law Dept. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2025). “42 Pa. C.S. §951(a). These divisions were established “essentially for the purposes of administrative convenience.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 951(b) — 1 case
Carr v. Rose, 701 A.2d 1065 (D.C. 1997). “See Restatement (Seo-ond) of Judgments § 30(2). To the contrary, however, the Orphans’ Court is a court of general jurisdiction.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 951(c) — 1 case
O'brien (E.D. Pa. 2025). “42 Pa. C.S. § 951(c). 1 For purposes of this Motion, the Court accepts as true all factual allegations in the Complaint.”
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.