Case law

Stanton v. Lackawanna Energy, Ltd.

584 Pa. 550 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 23, 2005

The Superior Court did not address the trial court’s finding that the gate qualified as land for purposes of RULWA immunity. … The Stantons did argue before the trial court that the swing-arm gate did not qualify as land for purposes of RULWA immunity. The trial court determined that it was a part of the land.

Moses v. McWilliams

379 Pa. Super. 150 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 1988

The invasion of privacy is actionable when there is an unreasonable and serious interference with one’s privacy interest. 9 Nonetheless, an individual’s right to privacy is clearly qualified when that individual has filed … well established in English common law. ...

Yoder, J., Aplt. v. McCarthy Const.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 2025

We then must determine whether “the Superior Court failed to properly apply the facts that must be strictly established under McDonald . . . for a general contractor to qualify as a statutory employer in the light most … Thus, in Yoder’s view, if an employer establishes that it is a statutory employer under Section 302(a) or (b), then the statutory employer is immune from common law actions in tort for negligence under Section 203.

Cooper v. Delaware Valley Medical Center

539 Pa. 620 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 15, 1995

Moreover, the Superior Court found that the immunity provisions of the Peer Review Protection Act do not extend to hospitals, but are limited to individuals. After establishing that the DVMC was not immune and that Dr. … Clearly, [Dr. Cooper’s] claim relates to specific individuals who had some input in the development of the new credentialing criteria.

Legal Capital, LLC. v. Medical Professional Liability Catastrophe Loss Fund

561 Pa. 336 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 1, 2000

“An assignment is a transfer of property or some other right from one person to another, and unless in some way qualified, it extinguishes the assignor’s right to performance by the obligor and transfers that right to the … Clearly, Legal • Capital does not seek to obtain money damages from the CAT Fund itself in the instant action. The funds that Legal Capital seeks are funds the CAT Fund is already affirmatively *343 obligated to pay.

Sciandra v. Lynett

409 Pa. 595 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 1963

However, this is a qualified or conditional privilege, rather than absolute. … However, this qualified immunity is forfeited if the publisher steps out of the scope of the privilege or abuses the “occasion.” This can be done by exaggerated additions, or embellishments to the account.

Galette, C. v. NJ Transit; Apl. of: NJT

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 2025

Ann. §§ 27:25-1 to -24.2, established NJ Transit. … The Act further establishes a NJ Transit Police Department. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 27:25-15.1.

Ferri v. Ackerman

483 Pa. 90 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 1978

As observed by a distinguished English judge, it would establish the weakness of judicial authority in a degrading responsibility. … Economou, 438 U.S. 478 , 98 S.Ct. 2894 , 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978), which held some federal executive officials were entitled only to qualified immunity, but that federal agency attorneys presenting actions were absolutely immune

Brown, J. v. Gaydos, G., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2026

Id. at 11. 6 Brown contends his interpretation is supported by the plain language of Section 72 “when read as [a] whole, clearly and unambiguously establishes that a co-employee seeking immunity must have been actively … Read against its facts, Apple clearly did not interpret “in the same employ” as granting the form of unlimited immunity that Gaydos advocates.

Albright v. Abington Memorial Hospital

548 Pa. 268 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 1997

Pursuant to the qualified immunity provision of the Act, the Hospital is immune from civil and criminal liability for certain decisions that it makes unless it committed willful misconduct or gross negligence. … To resolve Appellant’s first argument, we must interpret the Act’s qualified immunity provision.

Dean v. Com., Dept. of Transp.

561 Pa. 503 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 18, 2000

In order for the Commonwealth to be found liable, a plaintiff must also establish that the cause of action falls under one of the specifically enumerated exceptions to immunity. 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b). … Since I believe the real estate exception to sovereign immunity clearly applies to the instant case, I must respectfully dissent.

Allen v. Montgomery Hospital

548 Pa. 299 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 1997

Farago, supra at 419 , 562 A.2d at 303 (hospital qualifies as person subject to immunity under Section 114 of the MHPA). … Such a narrow interpretation would clearly contravene the purposes of the MHPA to provide adequate treatment to the mentally ill with the least *308 restrictive physical restraints. 6 Applying this interpretation to the present

City of Philadelphia v. Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals

622 Pa. 581 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2013

According to the Board, the Girard Trust is clearly a public charity and continued immunity from local real estate taxation is therefore warranted. … Practically speaking, if an entity is immune, the taxing authority bears the burden of establishing why taxation is permissible; if the entity is exempt, the entity bears the burden of establishing why it should not be subject

Brooks v. Cole; Apl of: Family Court

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2021

Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526 (emphasis in original) (discussing qualified public official immunity). … Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 228 (1991) (discussing qualified immunity); see also, e.g., Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231- 32 (declaring that a qualified immunity defense is “effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go

Post v. Mendel

510 Pa. 213 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 1986

In this Commonwealth, protection for such communications is firmly established. As stated in Greenberg v. … The letter was clearly not a part of the judicial proceedings to which it made reference, and merely forwarding a copy of the letter to the court did not make it a part of those proceedings.

Bochetto v. Gibson

580 Pa. 245 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 2004

Gibson and his firm also argued that he was entitled to summary judgment for his act of sending his malpractice complaint to Dudick because he was entitled to conditional or qualified immunity and because the allegations … While Gibson is not absolutely immune from liability for his act of sending the complaint to Dudick, he nevertheless may be entitled to qualified immunity. See Green v.

U.S. Venture Inc, Aplt. v. Dep of Comm & Econo Dev

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2021

The Commonwealth points out that Venture simultaneously wishes to avail itself of the Code to the extent that the written agreements qualify for the Code’s waiver of sovereign immunity while ignoring all other parts of … We would agree that sovereign immunity would be waived if these agreements were “procurement contracts,” insofar as a “procurement contract” qualifies as a contract that is governed by the Code and for which sovereign

City of Phila. v. J.S., Aplts.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2026

The City, however, argues Section 8542(b)(9) is unambiguous for the opposite reason — the General Assembly clearly intended the sexual abuse immunity exception to apply only if the victim was a minor at the time of the … Through its enactment of Section 2310, the Sovereign Immunity Act, and the PSTCA, the Pennsylvania General Assembly clearly directed that broad governmental immunity is the “absolute rule.” Mascaro, 523 A.2d at 1123.

Meyers Estate

416 Pa. 516 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 1965

qualified appraiser. … Hileman to have like option to purchase the same at the price established as aforesaid, within sixty (60) days from the date of the expiration of the option of Samuel Davis." *518 Davis appointed a qualified appraiser, Hileman

Newman v. Thorn

359 Pa. Super. 274 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 1986

Newman’s dismissal; (2) federal case law grants state and local officials qualified immunity from suit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of federal civil rights; (3) the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, … We therefore conclude that the mere presence of issues other than immunity will not justify a refusal to transfer this case. 6 We also must consider the possibility of establishing two conflicting lines of authority on one