Reighard, P., Aplt. v. PPB
PPB
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided
June 25, 2025
Jurisdiction
S
Importance
54%
Practice Areas
Case Summary
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT PATRICK REIGHARD, : No. 4 MAP 2025 : Appellant : : : v. : : : PA. BD. OF PAROLE, : : Appellee : ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 25th day of June, 2025, as Appellant failed to file a timely brief, this appeal is QUASHED. See Pa.R.A.P. 3305.
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 25, 2025
Jurisdiction
S
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
AI-generated comprehensive summary with legal analysis
Case Overview
In the case of Patrick Reighard v. Pennsylvania Board of Parole, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania addressed the procedural aspect of appeals concerning the timely filing of briefs. The court issued an order on June 25, 2025, quashing Reighard's appeal due to his failure to submit a brief within the required timeframe.
Key Legal Issues
- Timeliness of appeal briefs under Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure (Pa.R.A.P. 3305).
- The implications of procedural compliance on the right to appeal.
Court's Decision
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled to quash the appeal filed by Patrick Reighard. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules, particularly regarding the timely submission of legal documents.
Legal Reasoning
The court's decision was based on the following reasoning:
- Procedural Compliance: The court highlighted that the timeliness of filing is a critical component of the appellate process. Failure to comply with established deadlines can result in the dismissal of an appeal.
- Judicial Efficiency: By enforcing strict adherence to filing deadlines, the court aims to maintain judicial efficiency and ensure that cases are processed in a timely manner.
Key Holdings
- The appeal was quashed due to the appellant's failure to file a timely brief.
- The court reaffirmed the necessity of compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 3305, which governs the timing of briefs in appellate cases.
Precedents and Citations
- The ruling referenced previous cases where appeals were dismissed for similar procedural failures, reinforcing the principle that procedural rules must be strictly followed.
- Pa.R.A.P. 3305 serves as a critical guideline for future cases regarding the timing of briefs and the consequences of non-compliance.
Practical Implications
- This case underscores the importance of timeliness in the appellate process, serving as a reminder to legal practitioners about the necessity of adhering to procedural rules.
- It highlights the potential consequences of failing to meet deadlines, which can lead to the dismissal of appeals, regardless of the merits of the case.
- Legal professionals should ensure that all filings are completed in accordance with the rules to avoid jeopardizing their clients' rights to appeal.
In conclusion, the Reighard v. PA Board of Parole case serves as a significant reminder of the procedural rigor required in the appellate process, emphasizing that adherence to deadlines is paramount for the successful navigation of the legal system.
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 25, 2025
Jurisdiction
S
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools