# Christy v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · July 13, 1995 · 54 F.3d 1140

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6934795

## Case

- **Full name:** Charles A. CHRISTY v. PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE COMMISSION, A Duly Organized and Existing Agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Robert Brady, Individually and in His Official Capacity James J. Dodaro, Individually and in His Official Capacity Howard Yerusalim, Individually and in His Official Capacity Frank S. Ursomarso, Individually and in His Official Capacity James F. Malone, III, Individually and in His Official Capacity John L. Sokol, Jr., Individually and in His Official Capacity S. Michael Palermo, Individually and in His Official Capacity Joseph L. Dirienzo, Individually and in His Official Capacity Samuel S. Carnabuci, Individually and in His Official Capacity Melvin M. Shelton, Individually and in His Official Capacity Deborah Koval, Individually and in Her Official Capacity John A. Boschi, Individually and in His Official Capacity Vincent J. Greco, Individually and in His Official Capacity John A. Stewart, Individually and in His Official Capacity George Pilecki, Individually and in His Official Capacity Sean Pilecki, Individually, Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, Robert Brady, Vincent Greco and John Stewart, No. 94-1386. John A. Boschi, No. 94-1398
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** July 13, 1995
- **Citations:** 54 F.3d 1140
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Alito, Becker, Cowen, Greenberg, Hutchinson, Lewis, Mansmann, McKee, Nygaard, Roth, Sarokin, Scirica, Sloviter, Stapleton
- **Cited by:** 28 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6934795

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that balance is "clearly struck" against immunity where funding factor weighed against, and only one factor - autonomy -weighed slightly in favor
- rejecting arguments regarding state regulation of agency funding as irrelevant to the funding inquiry and reiterating that "under our case law" question is simply one of state's "affirmative obligation to pay"
- noting that the Turnpike Commission’s ability to increase revenue through toll rates or decrease expenses demonstrated its ability to satisfy a judgment against it
- holding that the Turnpike Commission is not an arm of the state
- noting that the powers to sue and enter contracts are “traits not at all characteristic of an arm of the state”

## Opinion text

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
July 13, 1995
The petition for rehearing filed by the appellants in the above-entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all other available circuit judges in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6934795. Public record. Not legal advice.