Bridgeford, A. v. Allison, G.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Bridgeford, A. v. Allison, G.

184 A.3d 947

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 1, 2018

Docket793 MAL 2017

StatusPublished

This text of 184 A.3d 947 (Bridgeford, A. v. Allison, G.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bridgeford, A. v. Allison, G., 184 A.3d 947 (Pa. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM .

AND NOW, this 1 ^st day of May, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, the order of the Commonwealth Court is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED for consideration of the merits of Petitioner's appeal. As the common pleas court had not originally granted Petitioner in forma pauperis (IFP) status, the Commonwealth Court's reference to Rule of Appellate Procedure 551 in its defect correction notice was in error. Instead, Rule of Appellate Procedure 552, which Petitioner followed, controlled. See Pa.R.A.P. 552. Because Petitioner's post-appeal IFP application was pending before the common pleas court, the Commonwealth Court should not have dismissed Petitioner's appeal for failing to comply with the defect correction notice. Furthermore, since the Commonwealth Court subsequently granted IFP status to Petitioner, no filing fee shall be required for the appeal before that court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM .

AND NOW, this 1 ^st day of May, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, the order of the Commonwealth Court is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED for consideration of the merits of Petitioner's appeal. As the common pleas court had not originally granted Petitioner in forma pauperis (IFP) status, the Commonwealth Court's reference to Rule of Appellate Procedure 551 in its defect correction notice was in error. Instead, Rule of Appellate Procedure 552, which Petitioner followed, controlled. See Pa.R.A.P. 552. Because Petitioner's post-appeal IFP application was pending before the common pleas court, the Commonwealth Court should not have dismissed Petitioner's appeal for failing to comply with the defect correction notice. Furthermore, since the Commonwealth Court subsequently granted IFP status to Petitioner, no filing fee shall be required for the appeal before that court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.3d 947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bridgeford-a-v-allison-g-pa-2018.