What did the court decide?

The Supreme Court quashed (dismissed) the notice of appeal on procedural grounds under Pa.R.A.P. 910(a)(5).

Why was the appeal quashed?

The court said issues must be limited to those set forth in the statement of questions presented, and the appellant’s filing did not satisfy that requirement.

Does this resolve the underlying case on the merits?

No. The court’s order disposed of the appeal procedurally and did not address the substantive merits of the underlying dispute.

Can the appellant try again?

Possibly, but the appellant would need to correct the procedural defect—for example by filing within applicable deadlines and complying with Pa.R.A.P. 910 and other appellate rules—or seek relief if eligible.

Keeling, M., Aplt. v. Prothonotary

Docket 20 MAP 2026

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

OtherDismissed

Filed: May 5, 2026 · yesterday
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Type: Unanimous Opinion
Case type: Other
Disposition: Dismissed
Docket: 20 MAP 2026

Order quashing a notice of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Summary

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, per curiam, entered an order on May 5, 2026 quashing the appellant Michael E. Keeling’s notice of appeal. The court cited Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 910(a)(5) concerning the court’s consideration of issues limited to those set forth in the statement of questions presented. The order is short and disposes of the appeal by dismissing the procedural vehicle rather than reaching the merits.

Issue Decided

Whether the appellant’s notice of appeal met the requirements for issues to be considered under Pa.R.A.P. 910(a)(5).

Court's Reasoning

The court relied on Rule 910(a)(5) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, which limits consideration to the questions set forth in the statement of questions involved. Because the notice/statement did not properly present the questions for review (or otherwise failed to comply with the Rule), the court quashed the appeal without reaching substantive claims.

Authorities Cited

Pa.R.A.P. 910(a)(5)

Parties

Appellant: Mr. Michael E. Keeling
Appellee: Ms. Richards / Prothonotary, et al.
Judge: Per Curiam

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-05-05

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult appellate counsel
The appellant should consult an attorney experienced in Pennsylvania appellate practice to assess procedural defects and options for reopening or refiling an appeal if permitted.
2
Review Pa.R.A.P. 910(a)(5)
Carefully review the rule on statements of questions presented and ensure any future filing clearly and precisely sets forth the issues to be considered.
3
Determine deadlines and relief options
Confirm whether any deadlines for filing a reconsideration, petition for allowance of appeal, or other post-decision relief remain and, if so, prepare and file timely motions or petitions as appropriate.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The Supreme Court quashed (dismissed) the notice of appeal on procedural grounds under Pa.R.A.P. 910(a)(5).
Why was the appeal quashed?: The court said issues must be limited to those set forth in the statement of questions presented, and the appellant’s filing did not satisfy that requirement.
Does this resolve the underlying case on the merits?: No. The court’s order disposed of the appeal procedurally and did not address the substantive merits of the underlying dispute.
Can the appellant try again?: Possibly, but the appellant would need to correct the procedural defect—for example by filing within applicable deadlines and complying with Pa.R.A.P. 910 and other appellate rules—or seek relief if eligible.

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
                                MIDDLE DISTRICT


 MR. MICHAEL E. KEELING,                             : No. 20 MAP 2026
                                                     :
                      Appellant                      :
                                                     :
                                                     :
               v.                                    :
                                                     :
                                                     :
 MS. RICHARDS / PROTHONOTARY, ET AL.,                :
                                                     :
                      Appellee                       :


                                          ORDER
PER CURIAM
       AND NOW, this 5th day of May, 2026, the Notice of Appeal is QUASHED. See

Pa.R.A.P. 910(a)(5) (“Only the questions set forth in the statement, or fairly comprised

therein will ordinarily be considered by the Court.”).