Whether it is due process of law for an intermediate appellate court, not en banc, to overrule its decision in the same case

QUESTION PRESENTED No court has addressed this case’s question: Whether it is due process of law for an intermediate appellate court, not en banc, to overrule its decision in the same case. 2 ALL PROCEEDINGS This case comprises three appeals. The trial court from which all the appeals occurred is the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Pennsylvania. The docket number for all three trial court judgments is the same: 2007-1502. The first trial court judgment, entered December 5, 2007, is captioned: Daniel Morgan, v. Sheri Morgan, 3 The second trial court judgment, entered January 14, 2011, is captioned: Daniel Morgan, Plaintiff v. Sheri Morgan, Defendant. The third trial court judgment, entered September 27, 2016, is captioned: Daniel T. Morgan, v. Sheri A. Morgan, Defendant/Movant. All three appeals were to the Pennsylvania Superior Court (hereinafter called the “appellate court’). The first appellate court decision, on November 13, 2008, is docketed at 50 MDA 2008, 4 and captioned: Daniel T. Morgan, Appellee v. Sheri A. Morgan, Appellant. The second appellate court decision, on December 16, 2011, is docketed at 334 MDA 2011, and captioned: Daniel T. Morgan, Appellee v. Sheri A. Morgan, Appellant. The (latest) third appellate court decision, on July 20, 2018, has three docket numbers: (1) 1770 MDA 2016, captioned: Daniel T. Morgan v. Sheri A. Morgan, Appellant; (2) 1841 MDA 2016, captioned: Daniel T. Morgan, Appellant v. Sheri A. Morgan; and (8) 128 MDA 2017, captioned: Daniel T. Morgan, Appellant v. Sheri A. Morgan. (The second docket number, 1841 MDA 2016, is Daniel 5 T. Morgan’s cross-appeal of the trial court’s latest (third) judgment, on September 27, 2016; and the third docket number, 128 MDA 2017, is Daniel T. Morgan’s appeal from the trial court’s refusal to strike its latest judgment, on September 27, 2016. 6