Case law

Commonwealth v. Strickler

481 Pa. 579 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1978

He further contends that the district attorney's purported grant of immunity from further prosecution was of no significance, since he was entitled to reject immunity for "his own reasons." … Such an allocation of the burden of proof is clearly unsupported by our prior decisions in Lenart and Carrera .

Gordon v. Winneberger

310 Pa. 362 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 1933

A legislative intention to withdraw it should clearly appear before the courts may declare it withdrawn. In O’Reilly v. … L. 1235 (a supplement to the general Banking Act of 1876, supra) prohibiting branch banking establishments.

Firearms Owners, Aplts v. Comm'r of PSP

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 30, 2025

. § 8522 (waiving immunity relative to certain damage claims), this immunity, which has been described as “fundamental,” Brooks v. … sovereign immunity as to such injunctions.

Juan F. Portuondo Cigar Manufacturing Co. v. Vicente Portuondo Cigar Manufacturing Co.

222 Pa. 116 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 1908

Were these to be passed by without consideration, there would be still enough facts in the case clearly established to sustain the final conclusion of the court as above stated. … The defendants are here claiming not an immunity from interference, but a right to property derived through purchase from Vicente Portuondo.

D'Elia v. Pennsylvania Crime Commission

521 Pa. 225 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 1989

Furthermore, prison records established that these calls were placed by Russell Bufalino, the *231 reputed boss of organized crime activity in the Scranton-Wilkes Barre area. … Since the immunity statute involved granted transactional immunity, and this was clearly more than sufficient to supplant the Fifth Amendment privilege according to Kastigar v.

Schall v. Cole

107 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 1884

jury could have no difficulty in properly applying the jH’ineiples thus explained to the facts of the case as established by the evidence. … running it; nor was there any error in similarly qualifying defendant’s position as complained of in the ninth specification.

Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public Education

453 Pa. 584 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 23, 1973

Becently, the Indiana Supreme Court echoed the widespread displeasure with the governmental- proprietary distinction: “Exactly what constitutes a proprietary function as opposed to a governmental function has never been clearly … enunciated by the courts, and this failure to establish a criteria has led to the generally confused state of the bench and bar in the application of the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Firearms Owners, Aplts v. Comm'r of PSP

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 30, 2025

. § 8522 (waiving immunity relative to certain damage claims), this immunity, which has been described as “fundamental,” Brooks v. … sovereign immunity as to such injunctions.

Pinkerton v. Pennsylvania Traction Co.

193 Pa. 229 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 1899

Such association is treated in the statute as a partnership which upon the performance of certain acts shall possess specified rights and immunities. . . . … But such a proposition is contrary to all the established rules of law in regard to lessor and lessee.

Green, R., Aplt. v. Pennsylvania Hospital.

633 Pa. 18 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 3, 2015

At one time, hospitals enjoyed absolute immunity from tort liability. The basis of that immunity was the perception that hospitals functioned as charitable organizations. Thompson v. … Wright was the head of the psychiatry department at the hospital and that he was “qualified”. Dr.

Lasday v. Allegheny County

499 Pa. 434 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 1982

INTRODUCTION Allegheny County is seeking Proposals from qualified prospective concessionaires for the operation of the various concessions at Greater Pittsburgh International Airport that will offer high quality service and … Thus, by its very terms, clearly and unambiguously expressed, the request for proposals merely constituted “. . . instructions . . . for information and guidance . . . ”.

Dickens v. Horner

531 Pa. 127 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 1992

The acts of others are specifically excluded in the general immunity section and may not be imputed to the local agency or its employees and, in Mascaro , we held that the Legislature has clearly precluded the imposition … I join in the opinion of the majority insofar as it establishes that a municipality and its agents cannot be held liable for the superseding criminal or negligent acts of a third party.

MacGregor v. Mediq Inc.

395 Pa. Super. 221 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 1990

to establish the pleader’s right to relief. … Such an amendment clearly would remedy the defect, would help to focus the issues and ensure that the case is not decided on a technical error.

Crowell v. City of Philadelphia

531 Pa. 400 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 1992

A dangerous condition of trees, traffic signs, lights or other traffic controls, street lights or street lighting systems under the care, custody or control of the local agency, except that the claimant to recover must establish … The Mascaro Court used these cases to support its conclusion that “the Legislature has clearly precluded the imposition of liability on itself or its local agencies for acts of third parties.”

Northampton County Area Community College v. Dow Chemical, U.S.A.

528 Pa. 502 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 1991

Dow encouraged the Appellants to have the panels inspected by a qualified person and requested, if such an inspection took place, that it be present. … In affirming the trial court, the Superior Court concluded: The legislature has clearly set forth the entities that comprise this class.

Commonwealth v. Foley

292 Pa. 277 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 1, 1927

The constitutional change from the common law of libel was the granting of immunity to one charged with libeling a public official from conviction in any criminal prosecution where it is established to the satisfaction of … The section writes into the Constitution what was theretofore a qualified privilege, where the publication concerns the official conduct of men in public capacity, or any other matter concerning such public officers that

Heckendorn v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

502 Pa. 101 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 1983

Stempkowski, 247 Pa.Super. 366 , 372 A.2d 869 (1977). 1 *106 Appellant concedes that section 303(b) bars joinder of an employer for the purpose of establishing liability but contends that the Comparative Negligence Act, Act … 2252, which permits a defendant to join as an additional defendant “any person who may be alone liable or liable over to him on the cause of action declared upon ... or jointly or severally liable thereon with him,” is clearly

PA Cannabis Coalition, Aplt. v. 23rd Judicial Dist

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2026

discretion to deny the defendant’s request to continue using medical marijuana. 6 To the degree PCC may be seen as arguing this chain of events might nonetheless occur, such contention pertains to the directness qualifier … Still, the MMA’s immunity provision is not designed to protect that type of interest.

Miller v. Baker

166 Pa. 414 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 1894

We thought the evidence was sufficient to establish a resulting trust, and that the sixth 'section of the act of April 22,1856, was not applicable to the case of a cestui que trust in possession. … “It has always been supposed that notice of a resulting trust, or an incumbrance, is early enough at the sheriff’s sale of the legal title; but if the judgment creditor had the immunity of a purchaser, notice would then be

Beckett v. Laux

395 Pa. Super. 563 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 1990

Laux by Beckett, however, he may qualify as a residential mortgage debtor since he is a successor record owner. … Clearly, Laux, a successor owner of real estate, would be adversely affected by a party attempting to satisfy a $10,000.00 obligation by filing a writ of execution against the property he now owns.