Court Opinion

ID: 9894990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-03 20:09:06.230337+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:18.393524
License: Public Domain

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
             APPELLATE COURT PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE
                    COMMITTEE ON RULES OF EVIDENCE
                   CIVIL PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE
             ORPHANS’ COURT PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE
                 CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE
              JUVENILE COURT PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE
                      MINOR COURT RULES COMMITTEE

                                  ADOPTION REPORT

  Adoption of Pa.R.J.A. 104-115; Rescission of Pa.R.Civ.P. 101-104, 106-108,
and 127-153; Amendment of Pa.R.Civ.P. 126, 237.1, 1007.1, 1020, 1601, and 2225,
 Pa.R.O.C.P. 1.2, Pa.R.Crim.P. 101 and 600, Pa.R.J.C.P. 101 and 1101, Pa.R.A.P.
     105, 107, and 903, Pa.R.Civ.P.M.D.J. 204, and Pa.R.E. 101, 102, and 103

       On November 3, 2023, the Supreme Court approved the extraction of rules of
construction from the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and their placement in the
Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration through the rescission of Pennsylvania
Rules of Civil Procedure 101-104, 106-108, and 127-153, amendment of Pennsylvania
Rules of Civil Procedure 126, 237.1, 1007.1, 1020, 1601, and 2225, and the adoption of
Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration 104-115. The Court also amended
Pennsylvania Rule of Orphans’ Court Procedure 1.2, Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal
Procedure 101 and 600, Pennsylvania Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure 101 and 1101,
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure 105, 107, and 903, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil
Procedure Governing Actions and Proceedings Before Magisterial District Judges 204,
and Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence 101, 102, and 103 to establish and reference the
rules of construction for the Court’s procedural and evidentiary bodies of rules. The Rules
Committees have prepared this Adoption Report describing the rulemaking process. An
Adoption Report should not be confused with Comments to the rules. See Pa.R.J.A. 103,
cmt. The statements contained herein are those of the Rules Committees, not the Court.

Background

        Procedural rules adopted by the Supreme Court have the force of statute. See,
e.g., Dombrowski v. City of Philadelphia, 245 A.2d 238, 241 n.4 (Pa. 1968). Procedural
rules, like statutes, may be subject to interpretation based upon their language and the
circumstances in which they apply. To guide the interpretation of rules, courts have relied
upon rules of construction used for the interpretation of statutes. See 1 Pa.C.S. §§ 1901-
1957; see also, e.g., Commonwealth v. McClelland, 233 A.3d 717 (Pa. 2020) (interpreting
Pa.R.Crim.P.); Commonwealth v. Wardlaw, 249 A.3d 937 (Pa. 2021) (interpreting
Pa.R.A.P.).
       In 1939, rules of construction were added to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil
Procedure based largely on language contained in sections of the Statutory Construction
Act of May 28, 1937, P.L. 1019, with modification to reflect their intended application to
rules of court. Over time, the Statutory Construction Act, as well as the procedural rules
of construction, have been amended to their present form:

      Subject      1937 Statute       1939 Rule       Present Statute      Present Rule
 Title/Citation          --                                  --           Pa.R.Civ.P. 51
 Effective Date          --        Pa.R.Civ.P. 51            --           Pa.R.Civ.P. 52
 Definitions       46 P.S. § 601   Pa.R.Civ.P. 76     1 Pa.C.S. § 1991    Pa.R.Civ.P. 76
 Principles        46 P.S. § 531   Pa.R.Civ.P. 101    1 Pa.C.S. § 1901    Pa.R.Civ.P. 101
 Number/Tense      46 P.S. § 532   Pa.R.Civ.P. 102    1 Pa.C.S. § 1902    Pa.R.Civ.P. 102
 Words/Phrases     46 P.S. § 533   Pa.R.Civ.P. 103    1 Pa.C.S. § 1903    Pa.R.Civ.P. 103
 Numerals          46 P.S. § 534   Pa.R.Civ.P. 104    1 Pa.C.S. § 1904    Pa.R.Civ.P. 104
 Bonds             46 P.S. § 536   Pa.R.Civ.P. 105    1 Pa.C.S. § 1906    Pa.R.Civ.P. 105
 Comp Time         46 P.S. § 538   Pa.R.Civ.P. 106    1 Pa.C.S. § 1908    Pa.R.Civ.P. 106
 Time - Weeks      46 P.S. § 539   Pa.R.Civ.P. 107    1 Pa.C.S. § 1909    Pa.R.Civ.P. 107
 Time - Months     46 P.S. § 540   Pa.R.Civ.P. 108    1 Pa.C.S. § 1910    Pa.R.Civ.P. 108
 Liberal Con             --        Pa.R.Civ.P. 126           --           Pa.R.Civ.P. 126
 Court Intent      46 P.S. § 551   Pa.R.Civ.P. 127    1 Pa.C.S. § 1921    Pa.R.Civ.P. 127
 Presumptions      46 P.S. § 552   Pa.R.Civ.P. 128    1 Pa.C.S. § 1922    Pa.R.Civ.P. 128
 Grammar           46 P.S. § 553   Pa.R.Civ.P. 129    1 Pa.C.S. § 1923          --
 Titles            46 P.S. § 554   Pa.R.Civ.P. 130    1 Pa.C.S. § 1924    Pa.R.Civ.P. 129
 Common Law        46 P.S. § 558   Pa.R.Civ.P. 131    1 Pa.C.S. § 1928    Pa.R.Civ.P. 130
 Pari Materia      46 P.S. § 562   Pa.R.Civ.P. 132    1 Pa.C.S. § 1932    Pa.R.Civ.P. 131
 Inconsistent            --              --                  --           Pa.R.Civ.P. 133
 Controls          46 P.S. § 563   Pa.R.Civ.P. 133    1 Pa.C.S. § 1933    Pa.R.Civ.P. 132
 Eff Date Amd            --        Pa.R.Civ.P. 151           --           Pa.R.Civ.P. 52
 Amendatory        46 P.S. § 573   Pa.R.Civ.P. 152    1 Pa.C.S. § 1953    Pa.R.Civ.P. 152
 Merger            46 P.S. § 574   Pa.R.Civ.P. 153    1 Pa.C.S. § 1954    Pa.R.Civ.P. 153

These rules of construction have guided the interpretation of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
See, e.g., Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co., 106 A.3d 48 (Pa. 2014); Terra Technical Services, LLC
v. River Station Land, L.P., 124 A.3d 289 (Pa. 2015).

       Many of the other bodies of rules have rules of construction of varying degree. The
Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure, and Rules of Appellate
Procedure simply reference the “rules of statutory construction” and address the
consequence of procedural defect. The Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure incorporate
by reference Pa.R.Civ.P. 102-153 but exclude Pa.R.Civ.P. 126.

                                            2
      The Rules of Civil Procedure Governing Actions and Proceedings Before
Magisterial District Judges do not reference rules of construction but do contain rules
based upon Pa.R.Civ.P. 106 and 108 for the computation of time. While users in this
non-record forum may infrequently consult rules of construction, that does not eliminate
the possibility of ambiguity arising from the application of procedural rules in ever-
changing circumstances.

        The Rules of Evidence do not reference rules of construction, relying instead on
Pa.R.E. 102 (“These rules should be construed so as to administer every proceeding
fairly, eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay, and promote the development of
evidence law, to the end of ascertaining the truth and securing a just determination.”) to
guide the construction of the rules. Thus, the incorporation of rules of construction within
the Rules of Evidence would be a new concept that does not appear in the Federal Rules
of Evidence.

        Evidentiary rules are not limited to the Rules of Evidence; there is a rich source of
evidentiary rules contained in statutes. See, e.g., 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6101-6160; 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 5985.1, § 5986, and § 5993. Those statutory-based evidentiary rules are subject to the
rules of statutory construction set forth in Title 1 of Pennsylvania’s Consolidated
Statutes. Therefore, it would be consistent that rule-based evidentiary rules be subject
to similar rules of construction. Additionally, the Court has previously applied the rules of
statutory construction to a rule of evidence found in the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal
Procedure. See Commonwealth v. McClelland, 233 A.3d 717, 734 (Pa. 2020) (discussing
Pa.R.Crim.P. 542(E) and the admissibility of hearsay evidence at a preliminary
hearing). This application is informative insofar as the Court has used rules of
construction to guide the interpretation of a rule of evidence notwithstanding that the rule
was not located in the Rules of Evidence.

       To provide for uniform rules of construction for all procedural and evidentiary
bodies of rules, the detailed rules of construction were removed from the Rules of Civil
Procedure, revised if merited, and relocated to the Rules of Judicial Administration to
immediately follow the rules governing the rulemaking process. Having one set of rules
of construction for all bodies of rules will permit readers to understand their application
across all rules rather than a particular body of rules. Further, replicating the same rules
of construction within each body of rules seemed unnecessarily duplicative and may invite
inconsistency in the application of identically worded rules. Therefore, any rules of
construction organic to a body of rules have been removed with each body of rules
thereafter containing a reference to the Rules of Judicial Administration concerning the
rules of construction. Additionally, insofar as practicable, the title to the rule within each
body of rules referencing the Rules of Judicial Administration includes the term
“Construction” as a common signal.

                                              3
       However, not every rule of construction found in the Rules of Civil Procedure has
been relocated to the Rules of Judicial Administration. Pa.R.Civ.P. 105 concerning bonds
would remain in the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure because that rule is specific
to civil proceedings. Application of that guidance to other bodies of rules may
unintentionally conflict with existing provisions. See, e.g., Pa.R.Crim.P. 525 (bail bond).

        Pa.R.Civ.P. 104 concerning Roman numerals and Arabic numerals being deemed
parts of the English language has been omitted from the newly established rules of
construction. Such an anachronistic provision appeared unnecessary for the modern
construction of judicial rules. There is a dearth of Pennsylvania cases litigating the
meaning of numerals within the rules based simply on the fact that they are expressed as
numbers rather than stated in English, e.g., “VII” v. “7” v. “seven.” While that may owe to
the existence of Pa.R.Civ.P. 104 and 1 Pa.C.S. § 1904, it is submitted that any ambiguity
may be resolved by the context in which the numerals are used and not whether numerals
are or are not part of the English language. For example, “1/2” can be an expression of
a mathematical operation or a date, which may be an ambiguity resolved by examining
its context, but its existence cannot be ignored because Arabic numbers were used. The
rejected need for such a rule is exemplified by the discontinued use of the numero sign,
i.e., “No.,” in the citation of the rules.

       Consideration was given to whether the rules of construction should be further
modified to improve readability and applicability to rules, as opposed to statutes. As
observed, the Rules of Civil Procedure’s rules of construction were largely based on the
rules of statutory construction. Therefore, there was merit in preserving the operative text
to the extent it was feasible. This approach allows the application of the statutory rules
of construction to inform the application of the judicial rules of construction given that both
are similarly worded. Further, this maintains consistency with prior Court interpretations
of rules citing the statutory rules of construction. Additionally, this consistency reduces
the complexity for the reader to understand and employ two different rules of construction.
Notwithstanding the goal of maintaining existing language, there were some aspects of
the rules of construction that were revised to clarify their application.

      A proposal was published for comment, see 51 Pa.B. 5532 (September 4, 2021).
A commenter supporting the proposal suggested that a provision similar to Pa.R.Civ.P.
126 be added to the proposed rules of construction. That rule states:

       The rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just, speedy and
       inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding to which they are
       applicable. The court at every stage of any such action or proceeding may
       disregard any error or defect of procedure which does not affect the
       substantial rights of the parties.

                                              4
Pa.R.Civ.P. 126. A similar provision is contained in Pa.R.O.C.P. 1.2(a).1

        The Pennsylvania Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure contain a provision similar to
the first sentence of Pa.R.Civ.P. 126, see Pa.R.J.C.P. 101(A)-(B); 1101(A)-(B), as do the
Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 101(A)-(B), as do the
Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, see Pa.R.E. 102 (“These rules should be construed so
as to administer every proceeding fairly, eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay, and
promote the development of evidence law, to the end of ascertaining the truth and
securing a just determination.”). Similarly, the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate
Procedure contain a “just, speedy, and inexpensive” provision. See Pa.R.A.P. 105(a).
There is no analogue to Pa.R.Civ.P. 126 in the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure
Before Magisterial District Judges.2

       The first sentence of Pa.R.Civ.P. 126, and similar provisions in the other bodies of
rules, will aid the construction of the rules. Pa.R.J.A. 109 sets forth the presumptions in
ascertaining the Supreme Court’s intention in the adoption or amendment of a rule. That
rule has been revised to set forth the following in subdivision (b): “The Supreme Court
intends a rule to be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination
of every action or proceeding to which it is applicable.” This presumption is only one of
several presumptions in ascertaining intent. For example, the presumption of a “just,
speedy, and inexpensive determination” must be balanced by the presumptions that the
Court did not intend to violate the United States or Pennsylvania Constitutions.

       Omitted from this presumption is any mention of “strict” or “liberal” because using
those adjectives to describe the manner of construction may displace the very purpose
of the other rules of construction or create an internal inconsistency within the rules of
construction. Those adjectives are more appropriate for application of the rules, not their
construction.

      Concomitantly with the post-publication revision of Pa.R.J.A. 109 to add the
language similar to the first sentence of Pa.R.Civ.P. 126 for the construction of rules, the

1      Similar provisions exist in the federal rules. See, e.g., Fed.R.Civ.P. 1 (“They
should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure
the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”);
Fed.R.Crim.P. 2 (“These rules are to be interpreted to provide for the just determination
of every criminal proceeding, to secure simplicity in procedure and fairness in
administration, and to eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay.”).

2     The absence of such a provision is likely due to factors including court-driven
scheduling, court-directed service, jurisdictional limits, lack of discovery, non-record
proceedings, and ability for a de novo appeal, which contribute to timely and efficient
proceedings notwithstanding a provision.

                                             5
existing “just, speedy, and inexpensive” provisions within the Rules of Civil Procedure,
Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure, Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rules of Juvenile Court
Procedure, Rules of Appellate Procedure, and Rules of Evidence have been retained with
clarification that those provisions are to be used when applying the rules.

       The second sentence of Pa.R.Civ.P. 126 informs the reader how the rules should
be applied in light of procedural non-compliance: “The court at every stage of any such
action or proceeding may disregard any error or defect of procedure which does not affect
the substantial rights of the parties.” See also Womer v. Hilliker, 908 A.2d 269, 276 (Pa.
2006) (“[W]e incorporated equitable considerations in the form of a doctrine of substantial
compliance into Rule 126, giving the trial courts the latitude to overlook any ‘procedural
defect’ that does not prejudice a party’s rights.”). This authority can be used to determine
whether “near misses” may result in procedural default. See, e.g., Deek Investment, L.P.
v. Murray, 157 A.3d 491, 494 (Pa. Super. 2017).

       A rule governing the application of the rules was not included as part of the rules
of construction. The rules of construction are intended for the interpretation of ambiguous
rules. See also Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co., 106 A.3d 48, 74 n.21 (Pa. 2014) (noting there is
no need to resort to rules of construction when the language of rule is unambiguous).
Rules like the second sentence of Pa.R.Civ.P. 126 guide the application of the rules
regardless of the presence of ambiguity. Further, there is a varied practice based upon
rule and case law concerning what type of error may be disregarded or result in
procedural default. Hence, the authority of certain courts to disregard procedural errors
and defects remains within the individual bodies of rules where those provisions currently
exist.

       Further revisions to the procedural and evidentiary bodies of rules include:

       •   Retitling Pa.R.Civ.P. 126 as “Application and Construction of Rules”; adding
           titles to the subdivisions; replacing “construed” with “applied” in subdivision (a);
           changing “substantial” to “substantive”; and updating the disposition table in the
           Comment.

       •   Retitling Pa.R.O.C.P. 1.2 as “Purpose, Application, and Construction of Rules”;
           adding titles to the subdivisions; and moving the operative language from
           subdivision (a) to subdivision (b), including the replacement of “construed” with
           “applied.”

       •   Retitling Pa.R.Crim.P. 101 as “Purpose, Application, and Construction of
           Rules”; adding titles to the subdivisions; and replacing “construed” with
           “applied” in subdivision (b).

                                              6
      •   Retitling Pa.R.J.C.P. 101 and 1101 as “Purpose, Application, and Construction
          of Rules”; adding titles to the subdivisions; merging subdivision (c) into
          subdivision (a); renumbering subdivision (D) as subdivision (c); and replacing
          “construed” with “applied” in subdivision (b).

      •   Retitling Pa.R.A.P. 105 as “Application of Rules and Enlargement of Time”;
          retitling subdivision (a); and replacing “construed” with “applied” in subdivision
          (a).

      •   Retitling Pa.R.E.102 as “Application of Rules”; and replacing “construed” with
          “applied.”

      •   Corollary revisions have been made to Pa.R.Civ.P. 237.1(a)(2), 1007.1, 1020,
          1601, and 2225, Pa.R.Crim.P. 600, cmt., Pa.R.A.P. 107 and 903,
          Pa.R.Civ.P.M.D.J. 204, and Pa.R.E. 101 and 103.

       The current rules of construction have been removed from Pa.R.Civ.P. 101-104,
106-108, and 127-153, and are now located in Pa.R.J.A. 104 – 115. Differences between
the two bodies of rules as they relate to this rulemaking include:

Pa.R.J.A. 104. Principles of Interpretation. - Formerly Pa.R.Civ.P. 101

       The title has been revised from “Principles of Interpretation” to “Principles of
Construction” to reflect existing rule text. Additionally, “any rule” has been revised to
specify that the rules of construction are only intended to apply to procedural or
evidentiary rules adopted by the Court. Other rules adopted by the Court and rules
adopted by other authorities may be subject to construction, but these rules are not
mandated in their construction.

Pa.R.J.A. 105. Number. Tense. - Formerly Pa.R.Civ.P. 102

      No revisions were made to the existing language. This rule differs from 1 Pa.C.S.
§ 1902 insofar as the provision regarding gender was removed from Pa.R.Civ.P. 102 in
rulemaking dated April 12, 1999.

Pa.R.J.A. 106. Words and Phrases. - Formerly Pa.R.Civ.P. 103

      A Comment has been added to the rule.

Pa.R.J.A. 107. Computation of Time. - Formerly Pa.R.Civ.P. 106, 107, and 108

       This rule is a consolidation of Pa.R.Civ.P. 106-108 and reflects the Court’s prior
use of 1 Pa.C.S. § 1908 for the computation of time. See, e.g., City of Philadelphia v.

                                             7
F.A. Realty Investors Corp., 256 A.3d 429 (Pa. 2021) (granting petition for allowance of
appeal, vacating the intermediate appellate court’s order, and remanding for further
proceedings after concluding petitioners filed a timely Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, citing
1 Pa.C.S. § 1908). The text of Pa.R.Civ.P.M.D.J. 203, which is largely reiterative of
Pa.R.J.A. 107(a)-(b), (d), was retained in that body of rules so that unrepresented parties
are not required to consult another body of rules for the computation of time.

Pa.R.J.A. 108. Construction of Rules. Intent of Supreme Court Controls. - Formerly
Pa.R.Civ.P. 127

        Some of the factors that may be considered in determining the intention of the
Supreme Court have been replaced to include specific sources of information germane
to rulemaking. From these sources, the reader can understand the Supreme Court’s
intent. A Comment has also been added to assist the reader and reference limits placed
on certain sources.

       The factors contained in Pa.R.Civ.P. 127 that were retained include: 1) the
contemporaneous history of the rule, i.e., “rulemaking history”; 2) the practice followed
under the rule; and 3) the consequences of a particular interpretation. Factors added are:
1) the Court’s precedent; and 2) commentary accompanying the rule. These new factors
are based upon Touloumes v. E.S.C., 899 A.2d 343, 348 (Pa. 2006) (relying upon prior
Court opinions involving same rule for purposes of construction), and Pa.R.J.A. 103,
Comment (“Effective October 1, 2021, “rule” includes the rule text and any accompanying
commentary such as a note or comment. Such commentary, while not binding, may be
used to construe or apply the rule text.”).

       The factors removed were: 1) the occasion and necessity for the rule; 2) the
circumstances under which it was promulgated; 3) the mischief to be remedied; and 4)
the object to be attained. These factors require the reader to consider “why” the rule
exists, which is subsumed within the “rulemaking history” and discussed within the
Comment to Pa.R.J.A. 108. See also Pa.R.J.A. 103(a)(1) (requiring Rules Committees
to include a publication report containing the rationale for proposed rulemaking);
Touloumes, supra (relying upon Committee reports for purposes of construction).

       To retain these specific factors suggests to the reader that any source describing
“why” a rule exists may be indicative of the Supreme Court’s intent. This raises a concern
that sources outside of the rulemaking process may be relied upon, including periodicals,
journals, trade publications, interviews, and newspapers. There is no assurance that
these other sources are trustworthy, reliable, accurate, and not self-serving. Instead, the
reader is directed to “the rulemaking history” within Pa.R.J.A. 108 with the Comment
referencing Pa.R.J.A. 103 and Rules Committees’ reports. See also Laudenberger v.
Port Auth. of Allegheny Cty., 436 A.2d 147, 151 (Pa. 1981) (the Supreme Court stating

                                            8
that such reports “indicate the spirit and motivation behind the drafting of the rule, and
they serve as guidelines for understanding the purpose for which the rule was drafted”).

      Post-publication, the current factor of “the prior practice, if any, including other
rules and Acts of Assembly upon the same or similar subjects” was retained as
subdivision (c)(7). The prior practice, especially if giving rise to subsequent rulemaking,
may inform the construction of the present rule.

Rule 109. Presumptions in Ascertaining the Intent of the Supreme Court. -
Formerly Pa.R.Civ.P. 128

      Stylistic revisions have been made, but the substance of Pa.R.Civ.P. 128 is
preserved.

Rule 110. Titles, Conditions, Exceptions, and Headings. - Formerly Pa.R.Civ.P. 129

       The term “provisos” has been replaced with “conditions” to reflect current
rulemaking terminology. Additionally, reference to “use of notes and explanatory
comments” has been removed from the title and rule. That reference can now be found
at Pa.R.J.A. 108(c)(2) as “commentary.”

Rule 111. Rules in Derogation of the Common Law. - Formerly Pa.R.Civ.P. 130

       No revisions were made to the existing language.

Rule 112. Rules In Pari Materia. - Formerly Pa.R.Civ.P. 131

        Post-publication, language was inserted into the rule to limit the application of the
in pari materia concept to the single body of rules being interpreted.

Rule 113. Particular Controls General. - Formerly Pa.R.Civ.P. 132

       No revisions were made to the existing language.

Rule 114. Construction of Rule Amendments. - Formerly Pa.R.Civ.P. 152 & 153

      This rule consolidates former Pa.R.Civ.P. 152 (Construction of Amendatory Rules)
and 153 (Merger of Subsequent Amendments) as separate subdivisions. Subdivision (a)
was added to describe the significance of textual indicators when reading amended rule
text.

                                              9
Rule 115. Procedures Inconsistent with Rules. - Formerly Pa.R.Civ.P. 133

       Pa.R.J.A. 115 is intended to assist the reader in the construction of statewide
procedural rules when there may be conflicting statutory procedures or local rules of
procedure. Notably, the rule references “procedures,” which is intended to exclude
substantive rules of evidence that may be enacted by statute. See Commonwealth v.
Olivo, 127 A.3d 769, 780 (Pa. 2015) (concluding the statutory rule of evidence does not
violate the Supreme Court’s authority over procedural rules). It should also be noted that
some bodies of rules have savings clauses for statutory procedures. See, e.g.,
Pa.R.Civ.P. 1910.45; Pa.R.A.P. 5102. This rule would not displace the operation of those
statutory procedures because they would not be “inconsistent” with the rules; rather, they
are “saved” by the rules.

       Post-publication, the original text from Pa.R.Civ.P. 133 (“All laws shall be
suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with rules prescribed under the
Constitution of 1968.”) was retained and incorporated into this rule.

                                     *      *      *

      This rulemaking becomes effective January 1, 2024.

                                           10