Pennsylvania, United States except those cases which involve decisions of governmental agencies; public sector legal questions; actions to which the Commonwealth is a party other than criminal cases; or actions to which a not-for-profit, private corporation is a party, all of which are appealed instead to the Commonwealth Court.
The Superior Court hears appeals in criminal and most civil cases from the Courts of Common Pleas and on matters involving children and families.[2] Most appeals are decided on the submission of briefs only. However, when the parties request oral argument, those sessions are usually heard by panels of three judges sitting in Philadelphia, Harrisburg, or Pittsburgh, but the court also hears some appeals "en banc," i.e., with nine judges.[2] Sometimes, special argument panels sit in other counties around the Commonwealth. Although different panels of three judges may sit to hear appeals, there is only one Superior Court (that is, Pennsylvania is not divided into appellate territories).
Appeals to the Superior Court
Appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania are governed by the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure (Pa.R.A.P.)[3].
There are, generally speaking, three kinds of orders from which appeals may be taken to the Superior Court from Pennsylvania's lower courts[4]: final orders (Pa.R.A.P. 341), collateral orders (Pa.R.A.P. 313), and interlocutory appeals as of right (Pa.R.A.P. 311). If the Superior Court questions the appealability of an order from which an appeal has been taken, they will direct the Appellant to "show cause" within ten days why the appeal should not be quashed.
Appeals to the Superior Court are initiated by filing a Notice of Appeal in the trial court[5]. It's important to note that issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Green v. Green, 69 A.3d 282, 287 (Pa. Super. 2013). Once the trial court receives the Notice of Appeal, they are tasked with writing an Opinion in support of the order from which the appeal has been taken[6], directing the court's Prothonotary to transmit what is known as the "Original Record" (a chronological omnibus of all filings entered on the docket from the initiation of the case to the present; "[i]t is black letter law in this jurisdiction that an appellate court cannot consider anything which is not part of the record in the case." Commonwealth v. Martz, 926 A.2d 514, 524 (Pa. Super. 2007)) along with the trial court's opinion, to the Prothonotary of the Superior Court, and directing the Appellant to file a "Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal", if they have not done so already.
Once the Superior Court's Prothonotary receives the original record and trial court opinion, a briefing schedule is issued to the parties[7].
Opinions
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania is highly prolific, publishing on average between 10-25 precedential rulings each week[8] (unpublished rulings which do not generate new precedent are referred to as "non-precedential memoranda"). The Superior Court is known for writing their opinions in Verdana, and preferring that submissions by the parties be written in this font as well[9]. The Superior Court is also known for correcting punctuation, capitalization, and grammar when quoting from the opinions of lower courts, setting a high standard for courts throughout Pennsylvania, and displaying the Superior Court's close attention to even the smallest details of the cases before them.
As an example of the Superior Court's jurisprudence, in Balsavage v. Miller (Moon Dancer Vineyards & Winery, Inc.), 2025 PA Super 122 (Pa. Super. 2025) (Slip Opinion)[10] Moon Dancer Winery’s tastings, weddings, and music festivals violated the residential-use covenants governing its property, prompting the adjacent homeowners to sue. After the winery ignored court-ordered discovery and missed numerous deadlines, the trial court judge entered summary judgment shutting the business down and ordered it to pay the neighbors’ legal fees, and finding its operations in clear breach of the community restrictions. The Superior Court, in an opinion authored by President Judge Emeritus Correale F. Stevens, upheld that decision, ruling:
[Moon Dancer] claim “extraordinary circumstances” because real property is unique and the result of this case is “the loss of real property.” [Moon Dancer’s] Reply Br. at 26-27. First, we note that the result of this action is not the loss of real property—Mr. Miller still owns the property adjacent to his residential property from where he had been operating the Winery. Second, for “extraordinary circumstances” to be demonstrated, the circumstance must be related to the attorney’s failure to file, not related to the result of the litigation if relief is not granted. Thus, while we are sympathetic that [Moon Dancer] can no longer operate their business, this is not the “extraordinary circumstance” that a court considers. Accordingly, we affirm.
—Balsavage v. Miller (Moon Dancer Vineyards & Winery, Inc.), PA Super 122 (Pa. Super. 2025) (emphasis added) (Slip Opinion, p. 12-13).
Controversy
In 2013, former Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin was convicted of misusing her Superior Court staff, during the time she served as a Superior Court Judge from 1998 to 2010, to aid in her campaign to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (first in her failed campaign in 2003, and then again during her successful campaign in 2009). Orie Melvin was sentenced to three years house arrest (with the exception that she could leave her house to attend church and work in a soup kitchen) and two years of probation[11]. Judge Lester G. Nauhaus also ordered Orie Melvin to send a note of apology, written on a photograph of herself in handcuffs, to every judge in the state (over 500) as well as apology letters to her staff, and to pay $55,000 in fines and court costs[12]. In 2020, Judge Paul B. Matey of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit affirmed her conviction, writing that Orie Melvin “was prosecuted for misusing tax dollars for private benefit", and that she had "required [Superior Court] employees – during the workday and using public resources – to write letters to Republican Party officials, draft political speeches, fill out political questionnaires, prepare campaign fundraising and expense reports and write thank you notes to campaign donors."[13]
Judges
Superior Court judges are elected in statewide elections. The term of a Superior Court Judge is 10 years. After serving 10 years, judges may hold their seats if they win a retention vote. Voters have the right to retain or reject (vote out of office) Superior Court judges in Pennsylvania. Superior Court judges must retire from active service at the age of 75. They may serve as Senior Judges though, as approved by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
