Navigation

THE COURTS

Title 210—APPELLATE PROCEDURE

PART II. INTERNAL OPERATING PROCEDURES

[ 210 PA. CODE CH. 65 ]

Amendments to the Superior Court Operating Procedures

[47 Pa.B. 6362]
[Saturday, October 14, 2017]

 The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has adopted amendments to its published Operating Procedures. These amendments are reflected in the Superior Court Operating Procedures with amendments to Pa. Code § 65.0 et seq.

 These changes were approved on June 14, 2017 and September 12, 2017, effective on those dates.

 (Editor's Note: Sections 65.5, 65.22, 65.34, 65.35 and 65.41 were amended on June 14, 2017, effective immediately. Section 65.26 was adopted and §§ 65.38 and 65.39 were amended on September 12, 2017, effective immediately.)

Annex A

TITLE 210. APPELLATE PROCEDURE

PART II. INTERNAL OPERATING PROCEDURES

CHAPTER 65. OPERATING PROCEDURES OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES AND STAFF

§ 65.5. Panels.

*  *  *  *  *

 C. 1. After the Prothonotary has listed the cases for an argument panel, but before the actual argument of the cases: (a) if a member of a panel becomes unable to participate in the disposition of a particular case, the presiding judge of that panel shall notify the President Judge or his/her designee, and the President Judge or his/her designee shall secure another judge to sit on that case; (b) if a member of a panel becomes unable to participate in a particular panel, the President Judge or his/her designee shall designate and assign another judge to sit on the panel.

 2. After the Prothonotary has listed the cases for a submitted panel: (a) if a member of a panel becomes unable to participate in the disposition of a particular case, the case may be decided by the two remaining judges if they agree on the entire disposition of the case; if the two remaining judges are unable to agree on the entire disposition of the case, the panel shall proceed in accordance with § 65.5F.; (b) if a member becomes unable to participate in a particular panel, the President Judge or his/her designee shall designate and assign another judge to the panel.

 3. If, after oral argument on a case, a judge becomes unable to participate in the disposition of a particular case, the case may be decided by the two remaining judges if they agree on the entire disposition of the case. If the two remaining judges are unable to agree on the entire disposition of the case, the panel shall proceed in accordance with § 65.5F.

4. If a judge on a motions panel is unable to participate in the review of a particular motion, the motion may be decided by the two remaining judges. In the event that the two remaining judges are unable to agree on a disposition, they shall request the President Judge or his/her designee to assign another judge to sit in review of the motion.

 D. The presiding judge of each panel shall be the commissioned judge highest in seniority, except where the panel includes the President Judge who shall then be the presiding judge. The presiding judge shall preside at all panel sessions, assign the cases, and record the assignment of cases. The presiding judge shall transmit to the members of the panel and the Reporter a record of all assignments and/or other actions taken by the panel.

*  *  *  *  *

MOTIONS PRACTICE

§ 65.22. Motions Review Subject to Motions Panel Disposition.

*  *  *  *  *

 C. If, in reviewing motions to be referred to a motions panel, Central Legal Staff determines that the motion is patently defective or the appeal is clearly defective or can be disposed of based upon established case law, the motion may be presented to the assigned motions judge.

D. Where a motions panel denied a motion to quash or dismiss, it shall be denied without prejudice to the moving party's right to again raise the issue(s) presented by the motion before the merits panel by refiling the original motion in writing or preserving the issue in the written brief.

 (Editor's Note: The following section is new and printed in regular type to enhance readability.)

§ 65.26. Notices of Bankruptcy.

 A party that has initiated bankruptcy proceedings and has obtained an automatic stay pursuant to the United States Bankruptcy Code shall file a Notice of Bankruptcy with the Prothonotary of this Court. The Notice must include: (1) the federal court that entered the stay, including the court's district, if applicable; (2) the federal court case number; (3) the date of entry of the automatic stay; and (4) the Superior Court docket number. The party shall also include federal filings relevant to the stay including, but not limited to, the Notice of Bankruptcy Case Filing issued by the federal court.

DECISIONAL PROCEDURES

§ 65.34. Oral Argument.

*  *  *  *  *

 D. Pro se arguments, except from parties then incarcerated, shall be heard in the same manner and on the same basis as arguments of counsel.

E. The use of laptops, tablets, and phones by attendees at argument sessions, in a non-disruptive manner, is permitted in the courtroom, except that they are disallowed for oral communication, photography, or audio- or video-recording purposes.

1. The Court does not provide Internet connectivity.

2. All electronic devices must be on a silent or vibrate mode.

3. Parties presenting oral argument may, without seeking permission of the panel, utilize laptops, tablets, or phones for data, reading, and reference purposes only, so long as usage of the device will not be disruptive to the oral argument.

§ 65.35. Oral Motions.

 When oral motions are considered by the Court at oral argument, or when the Court issues an order sua sponte at oral argument, the presiding judge shall complete the form for the issuance of an appropriate order, which forms shall be available in all Superior Court courtrooms. The Court Crier shall transmit the completed form to the Prothonotary for preparation and docketing of a written order. Oral motions raising again an issue previously denied without prejudice must first be re-raised, in writing by refiling the original motion or preserving the issue in the written brief, before the scheduled argument date.

§ 65.38. [Petition for Reargument] Reconsideration, Reargument, and En Banc Review.

[A. A petition for reargument before a court en banc shall be referred to Central Legal Staff for review and the preparation of a memorandum for circulation to the full court. Central Legal Staff shall thereafter record the votes of the commissioned judges and shall prepare and file an order disposing of the petition within the sixty (60) days allowed therefor by Pa.R.A.P. 1113(a).

B. Reargument is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion. A petition for reargument will be denied unless there are compelling reasons therefor. Such reasons include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:

1. Where it appears that a decision of a panel of the court may be inconsistent with a decision of a different panel of the court;

2. Where it appears that a panel may have overlooked relevant precedent, statute, or rule of court;

3. Where it appears that a panel may have overlooked or misapprehended one or more material facts of record;

4. Where a panel relied upon relevant legal authority which has been reversed, modified, overruled, discredited or materially altered during the pendency of the appeal sub judice; and

5. Where the issues have potential for a significant impact upon developing law or public policy.

C. The court will not entertain a petition for reargument of an appeal which has been decided by a court en banc.

D. Following a decision by the merits panel, motions or petitions dealing with clarification, costs or sanctions, requests for publication pursuant to § 65.37, and petitions for extension of time to file an application for reargument will be referred to the merits panel for review and disposition. Untimely reargument applications shall be referred immediately by Central Legal Staff to the President Judge for entry of an order dismissing the application.]

A. All applications, motions, or petitions requesting reconsideration of the final decision of a merits panel, shall be recognized as Applications for Reargument pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2541 et seq., and shall be subject to all the rules and limitations otherwise applicable to Applications for Reargument.

B. All such applications described in subsection A shall first be submitted to the merits panel that issued the decision in question, i.e., the original merits panel, for consideration by that panel.

C. The members of the merits panel may vote to grant panel reconsideration, grant en banc reargument, or deny any such application.

1. If the merits panel recommends en banc reargument, Central Legal Staff shall circulate the application, motion, or petition, along with any relevant filings, original decision(s), and/or summaries, to the commissioned judges for votes.

2. If a majority of the merits panel does not vote to grant reconsideration, Central Legal Staff shall forward all relevant reconsideration submissions to the commissioned judges as an Application for Reargument before a court en banc.

3. A party's request that the case be reargued before a court en banc shall not foreclose a merits panel's ability to reconsider the decision that prompted the underlying application.

D. Reargument before a court en banc is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion. An Application for Reargument will be denied unless there are compelling reasons therefor. Such reasons include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. It appears that a decision of a merits panel may be inconsistent with a decision of a different panel of the court;

2. It appears that a merits panel may have overlooked relevant precedent, statute, or rule of court;

3. It appears that a merits panel may have overlooked or misapprehended one or more material facts of record;

4. It appears a merits panel relied upon legal authority relevant to the decision that has been reversed, modified, overruled, discredited, or materially altered during the pendency of the appeal; and

5. It appears the issues have potential for a significant impact upon developing law or public policy.

E. Reargument before a court en banc will be granted only if a majority of the commissioned judges of the court vote to grant reargument.

F. The court will not entertain an application, motion, or petition for reconsideration of a decision rendered by a court en banc.

§ 65.39. [Reconsideration] Ancillary Orders Following Merits Panel Decisions.

[A. Petitions requesting panel reconsideration shall be submitted to the members of the panel who rendered the decision.

B. Panel reconsideration, if granted, will be without reargument.

C. A petition requesting reargument before a Court en banc shall not deprive a panel of the right to withdraw and reconsider the decision which prompted the motion for reargument.]

A. If a timely Application for Reargument is filed, the merits panel shall retain jurisdiction over the appeal until such time as the application is decided.

B. Following a decision by the merits panel, applications, motions, or petitions requesting clarification, award of costs or sanctions, publication pursuant to § 65.37, or extension of time to file an application for reargument, will be referred to the merits panel for review and disposition.

§ 65.41. Argument Before a Court En Banc.

*  *  *  *  *

 C. Before or after argument before the Court en banc, the Court may vote that en banc consideration was improvidently granted. In such event, the previous panel decision in the matter shall be reinstated or, if there is no previous panel decision in the matter, the case shall be listed before the next available panel of this Court.

D. In the event that a party seeks to remove en banc status and reinstate a panel's decision, such request must be made by motion and is subject to full court review.

[Pa.B. Doc. No. 17-1686. Filed for public inspection October 13, 2017, 9:00 a.m.]



No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.

This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.


Navigation

webmaster@PaBulletin.com