Case law

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.

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

MELENDEZ BY MELENDEZ v. City of Phila.

320 Pa. Super. 59 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 1983

City of Philadelphia, 288 Pa.Super. 330 , 431 A.2d 1073 (1981): In our review of this appeal from the grant of summary judgment, our judicial role has been clearly defined. … (Supp.1981), presently 42 Pa.C.S. § 8541 et seq., which reinstated the immunity of political subdivisions from suit, except in eight areas of activity.

Commonwealth v. Conklin

587 Pa. 140 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 24, 2006

Malseed, 847 A.2d 112, 114 (Pa.Super.2004), appeal denied, 580 Pa. 712 , 862 A.2d 1254 (2004). 11 Humphreys’ education, training and experience, the Commonwealth argues, clearly qualified him to offer expert opinion testimony … His training and experience are such that he clearly fits within the *157 exception specifically recognized in Section 1203(3) of the Professional Psychology Practice Act.

Petition of Dwyer

486 Pa. 585 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 1979

Nevertheless, *598 the record clearly establishes that these agencies were performing a quasi-judicial function, and therefore there is no basis for criminal prosecution of their members. … The criminal law is not a permissible substitute for established administrative and judicial review procedures.

First National Bank v. Commonwealth

520 Pa. 244 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 1989

This change in the long established rule was abrupt and not clearly foreshadowed. … The second condition stated by the majority must be qualified to the extent that the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction declaring the tax invalid must have retroactive application. .

Commonwealth v. Pearsall

368 Pa. Super. 327 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 1987

Appellant’s assertions are simply not supported by the record; rather, the record clearly establishes that the child victim provided sufficient credible evidence to sustain each of the verdicts. (N.T. 3/6/86 at 39-89). … Her academic and experiential training were clearly more than sufficient to cloak her with a “reasonable pretension to specialized knowledge.” Commonwealth v. Washington, supra.

The Bert Company v. Turk, Aplts.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 2023

That said, the Supreme Court’s attitude toward the requirements of “due process of law” clearly is not immutable. … Press 2021). 78 See McDonald, 561 U.S. at 813 (Thomas, J., concurring in part) (“At the time of Reconstruction, the terms ‘privileges’ and ‘immunities’ had an established meaning as synonyms for ‘rights.’

The Bert Company v. Turk, Aplts.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 2023

That said, the Supreme Court’s attitude toward the requirements of “due process of law” clearly is not immutable. … Press 2021). 78 See McDonald, 561 U.S. at 813 (Thomas, J., concurring in part) (“At the time of Reconstruction, the terms ‘privileges’ and ‘immunities’ had an established meaning as synonyms for ‘rights.’

In Re the Adoption of G.T.M.

506 Pa. 44 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 1984

It is established that, in a proceeding to involuntarily terminate parental rights, the burden of proof is upon the party seeking termination to establish by “clear and convincing” evidence the existence of grounds for doing … Under these circumstances, it was clearly and convincingly shown that the applicable statutory prerequisites to termination were established by the evidence. Order of Superior Court reversed.

Yancoskie v. Delaware River Port Authority

478 Pa. 396 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 1978

commission’, and to establish in its stead the ‘Delaware River Joint Commission’ [i.e., the Authority] as a special public corporation. … IV(b), operates as a waiver of immunity as a matter of Pennsylvania law.

Consumer Party of Pennsylvania v. Com.

510 Pa. 158 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 1986

Thus, in ascertaining whether the legislator-appellees are immune from suit in the instant case, we must determine whether their activities fall within the “legitimate legislative sphere” and whether such immunity is necessary … Moreover, any other interested parties were clearly on notice of the purpose of the legislation.

Leadbitter v. Keystone; Apl: St. Clair Hosp

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 2021

Beyond its short-title provision, see 63 P.S. §425.1, the PRPA has a definitional section, see id. §425.2, and two substantive-protection provisions: an immunity-from- liability provision, see id. §425.3 (granting immunity … The General Assembly, in enacting Section 425.4, clearly voiced an intention to allow for the confidentiality necessary for meaningful [peer] review. Brief for Appellant at 52.

Johnson v. Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency

453 Pa. 329 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 1973

Here, the guidelines and standards established for the Housing Finance Agency permit no broad or unusual discretion. … YII Finally, 12 “[a]s is not unusual in attempts to establish that a statute is unconstitutional . . . assault is *348 made on. the title of the Act [13] ....

Freed v. Geisinger Medical Center

607 Pa. 225 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2010

That doctrine, however, does not control the threshold issue of our authority to sua sponte address arguments which are clearly implicated in the cases before us. … Thus, Flanagan clearly operates as a rule of evidence in that it precludes an otherwise qualified nurse from offering expert testimony. In this regard, Flanagan arguably runs afoul of Rule 702.

Holly v. Travis

267 Pa. 136 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 1920

It is enough to say that the untruth, if such it was, Avas not discovered or discoverable on the face of the record, but could be discovered and established only by testimony aliunde. … White, 19 Pa. 495 , in a case which involved neither of the ques *144 tions here presented, but which is so much relied upon in the opinion of the Superior Court, has been clearly misapprehended.

Finn v. Providence Gas & Water Co.

99 Pa. 631 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 1882

The second section of the Act of 1867, incorporating the defendant company, invests it with all the immunities, franchises, rights and privileges authorized and granted to both gas and water companies by the Act of March … We are clearly of opinion that the additional number of jurors thus to be called, should be drawn from the names attached to the special venire which the prothonotary is directed to issue.

Allegheny Housing Rehabilitation Corp. v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission

516 Pa. 124 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 1987

circumstantial proof in such cases, it is appropriate to the remedial purpose of the Act that the prima facie case not be an onerous one. *131 It was never intended, however, that the previously described analytical method would immunize … If the document is given credence and considered relevant to conditions at the time of Hodge's employment, the Commission would have to disregard substantial evidence to find that Hodge was qualified.

Willet v. Pennsylvania Medical Catastrophe Loss Fund

549 Pa. 613 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 1997

Sovereign Immunity In its preliminary objections, the CAT Fund maintains that its liability, if any, for the delay damages at issue is barred by sovereign immunity. 10 However, in Tulewicz v. Southeastern Pa. Transp. … To the extent that the Sovereign Immunity Act is inconsistent with Rule 238, it is suspended. See also Woods v.