Case law

Walker v. Eleby

577 Pa. 104 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2004

Then, the Borough moved for summary judgment on immunity grounds. … Neither that provision nor any other that this Court has found clearly provides that such an act of designation and taking over constitutes vesting ownership of the street, including the sidewalk, with the Commonwealth.

Bailets, R. v. Pa. Turnpike Commission, Aplt.

181 A.3d 324 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2018

Under such circumstances, where the meaning is not clear and unambiguous, we turn to our well-established principles of statutory construction. See, e.g., A.S. v. … First, PTC clearly minimizes the level, duration and extent of Bailets’s non-economic injuries.

Redland Soccer Club, Inc. v. Department of the Army

548 Pa. 178 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 21, 1997

Although sovereign immunity normally protects the Federal Government and its subdivisions from suit under state laws, there is an exception to sovereign immunity in CERCLA that provides, in relevant part, as follows: State … The Army also contends that sovereign immunity precludes the award of attorney fees against it under HSCA. As discussed in footnote 3, the question of sovereign immunity will be resolved on remand.

In Re Martorano

464 Pa. 66 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 1975

testify shall not be given except upon an order of court after a hearing in which the attorney general has established a need for the grant of immunity . . . .” 7 In Falone we held: “The ‘hearing’ requirement is designed … The order to testify shall not be given except upon an order of court after a hearing in which the attorney general has established a need for the grant of immunity, as hereinafter provided.” 19 P.S. § 640.1. .

Employers Ins. v. Com., Dept. of Transp.

581 Pa. 381 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 2005

Assignment Wausau asserts that this case clearly arises from a contract entered into with the Commonwealth. … As previously noted, the legislature has clearly provided that the Board of Claims is the exclusive forum for such matters.

Fawber v. Cohen

516 Pa. 352 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 1987

Under the Welfare Code, the Welfare Department is charged with establishing “rules, regulations and standards, consistent with the law, as to eligibility for assistance and as to its nature and extent.” … Clearly, none of the other four exceptions to Section 761(a)(1) would apply in this case.

Gibson v. Commonwealth

490 Pa. 156 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 1980

The Supreme Court has articulated three factors to consider when determining whether to give a decision full effect: “First, the decision to be applied nonretroactively must establish a new principle of law .... … We note that though our analysis focuses upon the third factor of unfair prejudice, clearly deemed the most fundamental in the case law, the second factor, of assessing the relation between the new rule and its application

Commonwealth v. McDermott

296 Pa. 299 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 5, 1929

It *304 takes for granted that such organization is proper and adequate, and lays upon the department of public welfare the duty of discovering whether or not applicant is qualified to carry out the work. … But there is no such necessity in the case of long established institutions, of general public interest, the reputation and renown of which are statewide.

Feleccia v. Lackawanna College, Aplts

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2019

trainer, as clearly outlined in the Consent they were required to sign. … the intent of the parties; 3) the language of the contract must be construed, in cases of ambiguity, against the party seeking immunity from liability; and 4) the burden of establishing the immunity is upon the party invoking

Hoffman v. Township of Whitehall

544 Pa. 499 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 19, 1996

It is undisputed, therefore, that appellant qualifies as a soldier to claim the ten point credit. … It mandates preference for a veteran who is among the final candidates for promotion, even where the veteran is not the most qualified applicant.

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Graham v. Schmid

333 Pa. 568 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1938

The federal statute used the words “if qualified to perform the duties required.” … It therefore clearly appears that the decisions of other states condemn the provision of section 4405 giving fif *580 teen per cent credit in advance to veterans as unconstitutional.

Commonwealth ex rel. Attorney-General v. Conyngham

65 Pa. 76 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 1870

Thus there is established, within the city, a Court of Quarter Sessions of general jurisdiction, as fully and clearly as any other court is or can be established within any county of the Commonwealth. … The reference in the argument of the Attorney-General clearly establishes this. In 1 Bac.

Leadbitter v. Keystone; Apl: St. Clair Hosp

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 2021

“Through these immunity and confidentiality provisions [§§ 425.3, 425.4] . . . the Legislature has sought to foster free and frank discussion by review organizations.” Steel v. … [J-7-2021] [MO: Saylor, J.] - 15 it can reshape how courts approach the PRPA in this fashion while honoring Reginelli’s clearly incompatible approach.

Morris v. Mount Lebanon Township School District

393 Pa. 633 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 1958

The doctrine of sovereign immunity and its application to local government law need not detain us here. … Cf. 4 Restatement, Torts §887 (1939) (only the state has complete immunity from liability in tort). We are not disposed to enlarge further the immunity from tort liability accorded school districts. Cf. Reichvalder v.

Cornman v. Philadelphia

380 Pa. 312 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 1955

the prescribed qualifying test. … else were they accorded any right to be immune from dismissal meanwhile for cause.

Pa. State Univ. v. DERRY TP. SCHOOL DIST.

731 A.2d 1272 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 1999

The immunity from tax extends to property owned by agencies of the Commonwealth. Id. In Pennsylvania State University v. … Inasmuch as HMC does not qualify for tax-free status as property owned by an agency of the Commonwealth, a remand to the court of common pleas is necessary for a determination of whether HMC qualifies for exemption on an

In re Registration of Campbell

197 Pa. 581 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 1901

The act of 1893 is entitled, “An act to establish a Medical Council and three State Boards of Medical Examiners, to define the powers and duties of said Medical Council and said State Boards of Medical Examiners, to provide … further urged that the act violates the prohibition in article 3, section 7 of the constitution against any local or special law “ granting to any corporation, association. or individual any special or exclusive privilege or immunity

North Hills News Record v. Town of McCandless

555 Pa. 51 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 1999

Nevertheless, based upon a line of decisions from the Commonwealth Court, it found that the tapes did indeed qualify as public records. … The provisions of the Pennsylvania Right to Know Act establish a narrower framework for public disclosure of materials underlying agency decisions than has been established by a number of other state legislatures, see, e.g

Balent v. City of Wilkes-Barre

542 Pa. 555 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 27, 1995

The City contended that the evidence showed that this was the only time that a violation notice had not been received; therefore, the Owners merely established that there was an inadvertent mistake, not an established policy … Obedience to such regulation is not taking property without due process; that clause does not qualify the police power, (citations omitted).

Jones v. P.M.A. Insurance

343 Pa. Super. 411 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 1985

The trial court sustained the objections on the grounds that appellees were immune from suit. 2 Appellant’s sole remedy was under the Act. … The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions or other trivialities. See D Ambrosio v.