Pa. Cons. Stat. » 65 Pa. Cons. Stat. (PUBLIC OFFICERS) / Chapter 7
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

65 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 715 (2026)

 Jurisdiction and venue of judicial proceedings.

✓ 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

§ 715.  Jurisdiction and venue of judicial proceedings.

The Commonwealth Court shall have original jurisdiction of actions involving State agencies and the courts of common pleas shall have original jurisdiction of actions involving other agencies to render declaratory judgments or to enforce this chapter by injunction or other remedy deemed appropriate by the court. The action may be brought by any person where the agency whose act is complained of is located or where the act complained of occurred.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: O'HARE v. Cnty. of Northampton, 782 A.2d 7 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
O'HARE v. Cnty. of Northampton, 782 A.2d 7 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “First, Section 715 of the Sunshine Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 715, vests the court of common pleas with original jurisdiction.”
Smith v. Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund, 894 A.2d 874 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006). · cites it 2× “As for jurisdiction, Petitioners assert Section 715 of the Sunshine Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 715, which provides that Commonwealth Court shall have original jurisdiction over actions involving state agencies to enforce the act, and Section 761 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.”
Day v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 931 A.2d 646 (Pa. 2007). “65 Pa.C.S. § 715. Although this Court has yet to pass upon the time requirements of Section 713, the Commonwealth Court, consistently with the plain language of the Act, has previously interpreted the provision to require a legal challenge under the Act to be filed within thirty…”
Pocono Mountain Charter Sch., Inc. v. Pocono Mountain Sch. Dist., 88 A.3d 275 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014). “65 Pa.C.S. § 715. The Charter School’s remedy for a Sunshine Law violation is statutorily limited as follows: “a legal challenge under this chapter shall be filed within 30 days from the date of a meeting which is open, or within 80 days from the discovery of any action that…”
PG Publ'g Co. v. Governor's Off. of Admin., 120 A.3d 456 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015). “See 65 Pa.C.S. § 715. . In this regard, Section 6(g) of Management Directive 210.”
Chester Cnty. Aviation Holdings, Inc. v. Chester Cnty. Aviation Auth., 967 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (E.D. Pa. 2013). “” 65 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 715 (West 1998).”
Reading Sch. Dist. v. I-Lead Charter Sch., 206 A.3d 27 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019). “, 206 A.3d at 46-48. However, I do so primarily because I agree with CAB that it lacks jurisdiction to consider whether a violation of the Sunshine Act has occurred in the first instance, as such determinations fall within the jurisdiction of the local court of common pleas.”
Hacker v. Colonial League, 56 Pa. D. & C.4th 281 (2001). “” 65 Pa.C.S. §715. Therefore, because plaintiff is likely to establish that defendant league falls within the definition of agency, and pursuant to section 715 of the Sunshine Act, this court does have subject matter jurisdiction.”
In re Condemnation by West Chester Area Sch. Dist., 50 Pa. D. & C.4th 449 (2001). · cites it 2× “Acceptance of the school district’s contention that a notice can be “posted” while secreted within a private file in a private office, would have broad implications inconsistent with the evident legislative intent underlying this and similar legislation.”
R. Duquette v. OOR (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023). “See 65 Pa.C.S. § 715 (court of common pleas where local agency is located has jurisdiction).”
S.-J. Neu v. Millcreek Twp. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2025). “” 65 Pa.C.S. § 715. 5 Neu alleged that the Description violated Section 709(c.”
Protect PT & P.R. Wendell v. Twp. of Penn & Bd. of Commissioners of the Twp. of Penn v. EQT Artemis Prod., LLC (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2026). “Objectors begin with the substantive argument that the trial court erred in finding that they lacked standing under a geographical proximity test and also argue that they have other routes to standing, including under Section 715 of the Sunshine Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 715 (relating…”
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.