Case law

Board of Public Education v. Ransley

209 Pa. 51 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 1904

L. 617, established a system of common school education for all the counties of the commonwealth. … A review of constitutional provisions and legislative enactments clearly shows that the state has regarded the education of its children as one of its duties and functions, the performance of which it has as yet delegated

Volunteer Firemen's Relief Ass'n v. Minehart

415 Pa. 305 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 1964

Clearly, mandamus lies to compel the performance of a purely ministerial duty. … This is not a situation where waiver of the State’s sovereign immunity from suit is required before suit may be brought.

Pincus v. Mutual Assurance Co.

457 Pa. 94 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 1974

meeting on March 27, 1973, a resolution to effectuate that distribution was introduced and defeated by a vote of 3,082 to 3 with 2 voters abstaining. 1 Based upon the above facts, appellants contend that the suit cannot qualify … As the trial court pointed out, if this return is insufficient, then in the future a corporation would have only to instruct their managers to refuse to give their name in order to secure immunity from service.

Commonwealth v. Puder

261 Pa. 129 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1918

In the Act of 1913 there is no limit to the amount of the loans, nor is there a clearly defined class of borrowers. … page 461) : “The general scheme of the act is, to create into a class persons absolutely undistinguishable from the entire body of citizenship by anything suggesting a differentiation with respect to rights, privileges, immunities

Allen v. Mellinger

567 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2001

The court’s reasons for disallowing joint and several liability were not clearly stated, but since the facts suggest that the defendants were joint tortfeasors, this aspect of the decision must be disapproved. … Pursuant to the Sovereign Immunity Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8521 et seq., sovereign immunity is “a bar to an action against Commonwealth parties” that has been waived in specified circumstances “to the extent set forth in [the]

Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad v. Tobyhanna Co.

228 Pa. 487 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 1910

Having once established a highway, its charter power is exhausted with respect to its location, and thereafter it holds the highway, as established, for the general public. … If the estate conveyed the company was only a qualified fee, as might be argued from the language of the deed, this circumstance would concern none but the grantors; the public would have no interest in it.

Solomon v. Solomon

531 Pa. 113 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 1992

The principal of Kathleen’s trust, which was a gift, is clearly non-marital property pursuant to 23 P.S. § 401(e)(3). … However, the determination of whether a business has established good will is controlled by the nature of the business itself.

Commonwealth v. Taylor, N., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 19, 2020

The court began by identifying three types of immunity: “Use” immunity provides immunity only for the testimony actually given pursuant to the order compelling said testimony. … Pyle, 342 A.2d 101, 105 (Pa. 1975) (adopting Kent’s formulation of the rights of juveniles in transfer proceedings and holding that “in order to try in a criminal court any person who might qualify as a juvenile, the waiver

Wilson v. Benjamin

332 Pa. Super. 211 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 1984

Three other applicants were rated “highly qualified;” two of these “highly qualified” applicants were awarded the positions. . Since Mr. … The specific defamation in the instant case ... was clearly made to outsiders of the grievance proceeding, whose statements were not part of the proceeding.

Christy Case

362 Pa. 347 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 23, 1949

Ed. 442 (1872)], it was held that the right to practise law in the state courts was not a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United States; that the right to control and regulate the granting of license to practice … “In case an otherwise qualified applicant is denied admission to the bar of the county oh the ground of a lack of the requisite moral qualifications, he or she shall have-a right to a hearing on that issue before the county

Finn v. City of Philadelphia

541 Pa. 596 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 1995

the city's immunity in this case. … Clearly, since in Snyder the plaintiff was not injured on Commonwealth property, the expansive reading given to the above-quoted statement by the Majority is without foundation.

Commonwealth v. McGinnis

511 Pa. 520 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 1986

While the testimony of the police was sufficient to establish their probable cause in arresting Appellant and requesting him to submit to a breathalyzer test, it does not follow that their observations of Appellant established … Without additional testimony to establish whether Appellant could ambulate on his own and speak coherently, or other evidence to show that Appellant was not in control of himself, we find the evidence insufficient to establish

Commonwealth v. Blough

369 Pa. Super. 230 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 1987

In the instant case, the Commonwealth established that appellant had a motive for setting fire to the house: money was needed to make major repairs within the home. … On appeal, appellant claims that defense counsel should have objected to the testimony on the basis of spousal immunity.

Doyle v. South Pittsburgh Water Co.

414 Pa. 199 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 1964

Since the defendant demurred, the averments in the complaint will be accepted as established fact. … Hence, if there was any immunity to be enjoyed by the municipality, and we need not decide that issue here, it would not be available to the independent contractor, as we clearly stated in Ference v.

Wise, Aplt. v. Huntingdon Cnty. Housing Devlp Corp

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2021

Wise claims that, in doing so, the court came to the “clearly nonsensical” conclusion that “the earth’s natural rotation around the sun causing darkness transcends and thus supersedes any and all dangerous conditions created … HACH also contends that the court appropriately distinguished Floyd and Peterson on the basis that they involved interior lighting and concerned whether that lighting qualified as fixtures, and, if so, were a dangerous

Commonwealth v. Schuylkill Trust Co.

315 Pa. 429 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 1934

There was no infringement of the immunity from taxation of government securities for the reason that the tax here in question was levied upon the shares qua shares and not upon the assets of the corporation: Northern Trust … The principle that shares of stock of a corporation may be taxed by the state of incorporation whether in the hands of resident or nonresident owners, is clearly upheld in Corry v. Baltimore, 196 U.

Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Hunte, L.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 2025

subject to a few specifically established, well-delineated exceptions.” 4 Commonwealth v. McCree, 924 A.2d 621, 627 (Pa. 2007) (Opinion Announcing Judgment of Court). … (b) Immunity from civil or criminal liability.

Shamokin Valley Railroad v. Livermore

47 Pa. 465 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 4, 1864

The case was therefore clearly one which turned upon this question of fact. … These facts prove very clearly that while it probably was the intention of the company at some time or other to establish a basin on these lots, the actual appropriation never was finally made.

Bailey v. Tucker

533 Pa. 237 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 1993

Therefore, the statute of limitations began to run no later than July 19, 1973, since on that date appellant was clearly on notice of appellee's alleged dereliction. … For a written contract, the limitation period is six years. 42 Pa.C.S. § 5527. [1] Whether or not the Court has the authority to establish immunity, alter the elements of the cause of action, or alter the standard of culpability

Ebner v. Ewiak

335 Pa. Super. 372 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 1984

He argues specifically that these lists were inadmissible hearsay because they did not qualify under either the business records or recorded recollection exceptions. … Hack, 495 Pa. 300 , 433 A.2d 859 (1981) (defense of interspousal immunity as a bar to suits is abolished in this Commonwealth).