In Re: Nom. of Griffith; Apl. of: Peake
Docket 17 EAP 2026
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Pennsylvania
- Court
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- Type
- Unanimous Opinion
- Case type
- Other
- Disposition
- Dismissed
- Docket
- 17 EAP 2026
Application for leave to file an appellate brief nunc pro tunc in an appeal concerning a nomination petition was before the court.
Summary
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.
Issues Decided
- Whether the appellant should be permitted to file an appellate brief nunc pro tunc (after the filing deadline).
- Whether the appeal should be quashed for failure to file a timely brief.
Court's Reasoning
The court denied the late-filing request because the appellant did not meet the requirements or show sufficient cause to excuse missing the briefing deadline. Because no timely brief was filed and leave to file late was refused, the procedural default prevented adjudication of the merits and warranted quashing the appeal. The decision rests on enforcing appellate briefing deadlines and related court rules.
Parties
- Appellant
- Thelma Peake
- Respondent
- Shaun Griffith
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-15
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider filing a petition for rehearing
If there is a credible procedural error or new information explaining the late filing, the appellant may consult counsel about seeking rehearing from the court promptly.
- 2
Consult election or appellate counsel
Parties should get legal advice to understand any remaining options and the practical effect on the nomination status and any related deadlines.
- 3
Review and comply with election timelines
Interested parties should confirm whether any other administrative or election deadlines remain that might affect the nomination or provide alternative relief.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court denied the request to file the brief late and quashed the appeal because no timely brief was filed.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The appellant, Thelma Peake, is affected because her appeal is dismissed; the nomination of Shaun Griffith is no longer being challenged in this appeal.
- Does this ruling address the merits of the nomination dispute?
- No. The court resolved only a procedural issue about the late filing and did not rule on the substantive merits of the nomination petition.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- Because this is an order from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denying leave and quashing the appeal, further review options are extremely limited; a rehearing application may be possible but success is unlikely.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT IN RE: NOMINATION PETITION OF SHAUN > No. 17 EAP 2026 GRIFFITH CANDIDATE FOR PENNSYLVANIA'S 3RD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, DEMOCRATIC PARTY APPEAL OF: THELMA PEAKE PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 15th day of April, 2026, the Application of Appellant Thelma Peake for Leave to File Brief Nunc Pro Tunc is hereby DENIED. Appellant's Notice of Appeal is hereby QUASHED for failure to file a timely brief.