Better Safe Than Sorry: Filing Post-Trial Motions in Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania has unique procedures for raising and preserving issues for appeal after trial that could "surprise" many unsuspecting practitioners, especially those who do not practice regularly in the commonwealth.
July 18, 2024 at 01:31 PM
7 minute read
Practitioners try to avoid having to appeal, of course. If trial counsel finds it necessary to appeal, however, counsel should ensure that appealable issues have been properly preserved. And there are many pitfalls in preserving an issue for appeal before, during, or even after trial. In Pennsylvania, the general rule is that issues not raised in the trial court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. This means practitioners must raise and preserve issues at every opportunity under the procedural rules. Issues could be raised and preserved before trial by, for example, motions in limine. Issues could be raised and preserved during trial by, for example, objections or exceptions to the ruling on the objections. Pennsylvania has unique procedures for raising and preserving issues for appeal after trial that could "surprise" many unsuspecting practitioners, especially those who do not practice regularly in the commonwealth.
In Pennsylvania, a party who wishes to appeal a jury verdict or trial court's decision must first file a post-trial motion with the trial court and raise all alleged errors. If not, the party would be precluded from raising the errors on appeal. This practice is different from other jurisdictions, including federal courts, where a party who wishes to appeal after trial would typically file a one-page notice of appeal. This requirement for preserving issues for appeal—i.e., filing a post-trial motion—is not found in either the Rules of Civil Procedure or the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The absence of such a rule is why practitioners can get caught surprised. It is easier to understand the requirement to file post-trial motions within the context of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The requirement "postpones the finality of a case-ending decision or order that otherwise would qualify as a final order triggering a right to appeal under the final order rule embodied in Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 341(a)." See Wolk v. School District of Lower Merion, 649 Pa. 604, 197 A.3d 730 (2018). "A trial court's order at the conclusion of a trial, whether the action is one at law or in equity, simply cannot become final for purposes of filing an appeal until the court decides any timely post-trial motions." See Gun Owners of America v. City of Philadelphia, 311 A.3d 72 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2024) (quoting Chalkey v. Roush, 805 A.2d 491 (Pa. 2002)).
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 All3rd Circ Orders SEC to Explain ‘How and When the Federal Securities Laws Apply to Digital Assets’
5 minute readProducts Liability: The Absence of Other Similar Claims—a Defense or a Misleading Effort to Sway a Jury?
Church of Scientology Set to Depose Phila. Attorney in Sexual Abuse Case
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Reviewing Judge Merchan's Unconditional Discharge
- 2With New Civil Jury Selection Rule, Litigants Should Carefully Weigh Waiver Risks
- 3Young Lawyers Become Old(er) Lawyers
- 4Caught In the In Between: A Legal Roadmap for the Sandwich Generation
- 5Top 10 Developments, Lessons, and Reminders of 2024
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