Is That Declaratory Judgment Order Appealable—Or Not?
Declaratory judgment actions brought under Pennsylvania's Declaratory Judgments Act, present knotty questions of appealability.
May 26, 2022 at 11:09 AM
6 minute read
Declaratory judgment actions brought under Pennsylvania's Declaratory Judgments Act, 42 Pa. C.S. Sections 7531-41, present knotty questions of appealability. See, Affordable Outdoor v. Tri-Outdoor, 210 A.3d 270, 275 (Pa. Super. 2019) (referencing "complicated jurisprudence surrounding declaratory judgments"). If the order resolves the entire action, then the answer is easy. The order, once it has been reduced to judgment (under Pa. R.A.P. 905(a)(5), appeals are from judgments, not orders—a common mistake), is final and appealable as of right. But even if the result in a declaratory judgment action does not decide everything, it may nonetheless be an appealable interlocutory appeal under Pa. R.A.P. 311(a)(8), which provides that "an appeal may be taken as of right" from "an order that is made final or appealable by statute or general rule, even though the order does not dispose of all claims and of all parties."
The Declaratory Judgment Act is such a statute. It provides that courts of record have the power "to declare rights, status and other legal relations" and that "such declarations shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree." The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's most recent encounter with Section 7532 was Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Insurance v. Johnson Matthey, 188 A.3d 396 (Pa. 2018) (per curiam), which held that an order denying an insurer's declaratory judgment in toto was not appealable where the insured had filed a counterclaim, also for declaratory relief, that remained undecided.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPlaintiff Argues Jury's $22M Punitive Damages Finding Undermines J&J's Talc Trial Win
4 minute readPa. High Court: Concrete Proof Not Needed to Weigh Grounds for Preliminary Injunction Order
4 minute readSuperior Court Directs Western Pa. Judge to Recuse From Case Over Business Ties to Defendant
3 minute readPa. Superior Court: Sorority's Interview Notes Not Shielded From Discovery in Lawsuit Over Student's Death
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Departing Attorneys Sue Their Former Law Firm
- 2Pa. High Court: Concrete Proof Not Needed to Weigh Grounds for Preliminary Injunction Order
- 3'Something Else Is Coming': DOGE Established, but With Limited Scope
- 4Polsinelli Picks Up Corporate Health Care Partner From Greenberg Traurig in LA
- 5Kirkland Lands in Phila., but Rate Pressure May Limit the High-Flying Firm's Growth Prospects
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250