distinguishing between entity that is instrumentality of commonwealth, which is not necessarily entitled to claim sovereign immunity, and integral part of commonwealth, which is
How later courts described this case
- distinguishing between entity that is instrumentality of commonwealth, which is not necessarily entitled to claim sovereign immunity, and integral part of commonwealth, which is
- declaring Turnpike Commission unentitled to sovereign immunity although it was constituted as an "instrument of the Commonwealth" and performed "an essential government function of the Commonwealth"
- it has been the "trend in recent years to do away with immunities from suit which are neither constitutionally or statutorily compelled”
- dissenting opinion of Roberts, J., joined by Nix, J.
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Poklemba v. Shamokin State General Hospital, 21 Pa. Commw. 301 (1975)
Specter, however, is inapposite to the instant controversy.
The opinion
MANDERINO, Justice
(dissenting and concurring).
I join in the majority’s opinion and order reversing as to the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. I dissent from the majority’s order affirming with respect to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Brown v. Commonwealth, 453 Pa. 566 , 305 A.2d 868 (1973).