In Re: Order Amending Rule 211 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure ( 2015 )

Explanatory Comment
Current Rule 211, if read literally, confers on a party the right to argue any motion
before the trial court. However, the Superior Court and the Commonwealth Court have
both held that any right to oral argument conferred by Rule 211 is only a qualified right
subject to judicial discretion. See Gerace v. Holmes Protection of Philadelphia, 516
A.2d 354 (Pa. Super. 1986); City of Philadelphia v. Kenny, 369 A.2d 1343 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1977). To remedy any confusion between the text of the rule and actual practice
supported by appellate precedent, Rule 211 has been amended to provide that a party
has the right to request oral argument, and gives discretion to the trial court to require
oral argument, whether requested or not, or to dispose of any motion without oral
argument.
By the Civil Procedural
Rules Committee
Peter J. Hoffman
Chair