Court Filings

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District, issued an order on April 30, 2026, quashing Pedro Luis Gavilan-Cruz’s Notice of Appeal. The court relied on Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 910(a)(5), indicating that the appeal did not comply with the requirement that only the questions in the jurisdictional statement (or those fairly comprised therein) will ordinarily be considered. As a result, the court declined to consider the appeal and dismissed the appeal process by quashing the notice.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed (quashed) Ajani Posey’s appeal because the Commonwealth Court’s order was not final or immediately appealable. The court relied on Pennsylvania appellate procedure rules defining final orders and explaining limits on appeals from certain interlocutory orders, including transfer orders under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5103. Because the challenged order did not meet the rules for an appeal as of right, the Supreme Court ended the case without addressing the underlying merits.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court quashed Ajani Posey’s notice of appeal on April 21, 2026, because the Commonwealth Court’s order was not final or immediately appealable. The court concluded the appealed order did not meet the state rules' definition of a final order and noted that certain interlocutory transfer orders are not appealable as of right. Consequently, the appeal cannot proceed in the Supreme Court at this time.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a per curiam order dated April 21, 2026, quashed a notice of appeal in a dispute between Paula Grapes (as executrix of an estate) and Linda J. Grapes. The Court concluded that the appealed order was not one of the types of final orders that may be appealed directly to the Supreme Court under 42 Pa.C.S. § 722 and the state appellate rules defining final orders. Because the appeal did not meet the statutory and rule-based criteria for direct review, the notice of appeal was dismissed.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a per curiam order on April 21, 2026 quashing a Notice of Appeal in a dispute involving Paula Grapes (as executrix of an estate) and Linda J. Grapes. The Court concluded the appeal could not proceed because the challenged order was not one of the types of final orders that may be appealed directly to the Supreme Court under state statute and appellate rules. The Court relied on 42 Pa.C.S. § 722 and Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 341(b) in finding the appeal improper and therefore quashed the filing.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Thelma Peake's late request to file her appellate brief after the deadline and quashed her appeal in a dispute over Shaun Griffith’s nomination petition for Pennsylvania’s 3rd Congressional District. The court acted on an application for leave to file the brief nunc pro tunc and concluded the application must be denied. Because Peake failed to file a timely brief, the Court ended the appeal without reaching the merits of the underlying nomination-petition dispute.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Thelma Peake's late request to file her appellate brief out of time and quashed her appeal for failure to file a timely brief in a case challenging the nomination petition of Shaun Griffith for Pennsylvania's 3rd Congressional District. The court's order, issued per curiam, concluded that leave to file nunc pro tunc was not warranted and that the procedural default (no timely brief) required dismissal of the appeal. No substantive merits were reached because the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds.