Statute Annotations › Pennsylvania › 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 931

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 931

Original jurisdiction of courts: the cases that interpreted this section

Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania
Case notes
6
Cited in passing
4
Citing cases indexed
11
Case dates
1997–2026
Screened through
2026-02-19
Courts' treatment: live
No reviewed case has held this section invalid, preempted, superseded or repealed.
This reflects what the reviewed cases said, not legislative action: a later amendment or repeal by the legislature would not appear here unless a reviewed case discussed it.

10 citing cases reviewed of 11 in the citation index: 6 interpreted the section (annotated below), 4 cited it only in passing. Cases filed after 2026-02-19 may not have been reviewed yet.

Have a situation under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 931?

These notes show how courts have ruled. Ask about your specific facts and see which of these rulings apply, with citations you can check.

General jurisdiction of Courts of Common Pleas

Section 931(a) gives the Courts of Common Pleas unlimited original jurisdiction over all actions and proceedings.

Carr v. Rose · filed 1997-10-09(a)

The Courts of Common Pleas have unlimited original jurisdiction of all actions and proceedings. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 931(a) (1996).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 931(a) gives Pennsylvania courts of common pleas unlimited original jurisdiction over all actions and proceedings unless exclusive original jurisdiction is vested in another Commonwealth court.

BELFI v. BANCORP · filed 2023-07-24(a)

That court’s jurisdiction is established by 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 931, which provides: ... The statutes Belfi cites do not strip the Court of Common Pleas of its subject matter jurisdiction under § 931.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 931(a) gives Pennsylvania Courts of Common Pleas unlimited original jurisdiction over actions and proceedings not assigned by statute to another state court.

EL, TR v. MOORE · filed 2023-12-14(a)

The Pennsylvania Courts of Common Pleas have “unlimited original jurisdiction of all actions and proceedings” that are not otherwise vested in a different state court by statute. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 931(a). Civil ejectment actions are handled by the county court where the land in question is located. Pa. R. Civ. P. 1052. Therefore, a Court of Common Pleas judge granting a motion regarding civil ejectment actions within their county would be acting both within his jurisdiction and carrying out a function normally performed by a judge. Accordingly, Absolute Judicial Immunity applies to Judge Moore.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 931(a) gives Pennsylvania Courts of Common Pleas unlimited original jurisdiction over actions and proceedings not assigned by statute to another state court.

SMITH v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA · filed 2024-12-20(a)

The Pennsylvania Courts of Common Pleas have “unlimited original jurisdiction of all actions and proceedings” that are not otherwise vested in a different state court by statute. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 931(a). Judicial Defendants had jurisdiction to hear, rule upon, and enter orders in the cases that were before them.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 931(a) gives Pennsylvania Courts of Common Pleas unlimited original jurisdiction over legal proceedings, subject to specified exceptions.

TAGGART · filed 2025-11-24(a)

The Pennsylvania Courts of Common Pleas have unlimited original jurisdiction over all legal proceedings in the Commonwealth, with a few exceptions not relevant here.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 931(a) broadly grants jurisdiction to Pennsylvania courts of common pleas.

White v. Walsh · filed 2026-02-19(a)

Nothing in the Administrative Order, however, alters the Pennsylvania legislature’s broad grant of jurisdiction to the courts of common pleas. See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 931(a); Commonwealth v. Bethea, 828 A.2d 1066, 1074 (Pa. 2003).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
4 more cases cited this section only in passing

These cases mention the section without interpreting it (a string cite, a footnote, background). Listed so you can see the full citation record, not just the annotated rulings.

Draper v. Darby Township Police Department, the court cited § 931(a) only to identify the Court of Common Pleas as a court of general jurisdiction while applying judicial immunity. It did not interpret or decide what § 931 requires or how the statute applies. opinion →
TALBERT v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, section 931(a) appears only in a string citation supporting the characterization of a common-pleas judge's acts as judicial; the opinion does not interpret or apply the statute. opinion →
MANSARAY v. KIRTLAND, the court cited § 931(a) only to support its conclusion that the defendant judge acted within the jurisdiction of a Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas for purposes of absolute judicial immunity; it did not construe or independently decide anything about § 931. opinion →
Bernard v. Ignelzi, the court cited § 931(a) as one supporting authority for the general jurisdictional conclusion in its judicial-immunity analysis. It did not interpret the statute, identify a requirement or coverage rule, or decide a statute-specific dispute; the citation was incidental to deciding whether the judge acted in the clear absence of jurisdiction. opinion →

Which of these rulings fit your facts?

Describe your situation under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 931. Ezel checks it against the cases on this page and answers with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace