Case law

Specter v. Commonwealth

462 Pa. 474 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 1975

Rather, whether any governmental entity is amenable to suit depends upon whether it is or is not part of the “Commonwealth” as that term is used in Article I, Section 11, of the Constitution, which establishes the immunity … It was unnecessary because the governmental nature of the Commission was at that time sufficient to establish its immunity from suit. 16 It is uncon *492 vincing because the authority upon which it rested was weak indeed.

Commonwealth v. Allen, Huhn & Shane

70 Pa. 465 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 12, 1872

They do not make laws, but ordinances; nor are the members legislators, with the constitutional privileges and immunities of legislators. … Its powers, fully established by the General Assembly, 22d May 1722, 1 Smith’s Laws 181, and repeated in the Act of 16th June 1836, Purd. 928, pi. 19, have been recognised in numerous decisions, to some of which I may refer

Insurance Federation of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Commonwealth

601 Pa. 20 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 27, 2009

Section 3 of the Childhood Immunization Insurance Act, Act of May 21, 1992, P.L. 239. . … The dissent concludes that, for women under 40, the phrase " 'based on a physician’s recommendation' ... clearly foreclose^] utilization review upon such a recommendation."

Mathis v. United Engineers & Constructors, Inc.

381 Pa. Super. 466 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 1989

The central question on appeal is whether PECO qualifies as the employer of John Mathis under the statute. … PECO also asserts that the testimony of the two Henkels foremen, Whitaker and Mench, clearly established that PECO had reserved the right to control Mathis’ work. We find that this testimony was ambiguous.

Johnson v. Peoples First National Bank & Trust Co.

394 Pa. 116 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 1958

An examination of our decisions clearly indicates that “. . . the personal immunity which protects [the husband or wife] is based simply upon the policy of preserved domestic peace and felicity”: Koontz v. … It does not follow, because for certain reasons the right may be qualified, and recovery suspended during the coverture, yet when the reasons are removed by the death of the husband, she should have no remedy against the

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

389 Pa. Super. 11 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 1989

Pennsylvania Department of Highways, supra on the rationale that modern all-pervasive government should be held responsible *19 for its tortious conduct, the legislature re-established sovereign immunity by enacting the following … The legislature has clearly set forth the entities that comprise this class.

Greenberg v. Aetna Insurance

427 Pa. 511 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 1967

Public policy requires this, even if at times the privilege of immunity for false and malicious averments in pleadings is abused. … That Rule, as amplified by Rule 1030, provides: “(b) All affirmative defenses, including but not limited to those enumerated in Rule 1030, and the defenses of .. . privilege, qualified privilege, . . . shall be pleaded under

Winig, J., Aplt. v. Office of DA of Phila.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2025

Attorney and his assistant district attorneys (Prosecutors) gives rise to civil liability under the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (the Wiretap Act or the Act),1 and because the General Assembly clearly … It is readily apparent that high public official immunity is essentially a subset of sovereign immunity, as it fundamentally seeks to establish immunity in service of the public good. See Doe v.

Moser v. Heistand

545 Pa. 554 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 1996

It is well established that we must strictly construe exceptions to sovereign immunity because the legislature intended to exempt the Commonwealth from immunity only in specific situations. Snyder v. … While a plaintiff clearly may bring an action in respondeat superior against a Commonwealth agency medical facility because 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b)(2) of the Code specifically waives sovereign immunity for acts of health care

Chilutti, S. v. Uber; Apl. of Uber

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 2026

Relevant to this appeal, the defendants in Pridgen filed motions for summary judgment, claiming that they were immune from suit under GARA. The trial court denied the motions. … In addition, this matter does not have anything to do with a claim of immunity from suit.

Farago v. Sacred Heart General Hospital

522 Pa. 410 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 1989

Clearly, decisions under the Act and under this section are made by natural persons, not by corporations, associations, etc. … Just as clearly, had the legislature intended to immunize the mental health care facility from immunity with section 114, 50 P.S. § 7114, it would surely have immunized “any other authorized person or facility____” The legislature

Ehret v. Kulpmont Borough School District

333 Pa. 518 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 1938

partially destroy, or interfere with the general purposes of the code by conflict with other sections, the amendment should be strictly construed and made to conform to the general purposes unless the • legislative intent is clearly … to employ the necessary qualified teachers.

Tulewicz v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

529 Pa. 588 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 1992

They claim they are not only immune but that their immunity is not waivable, even if they negligently failed to do so before. … SEPTA, 512 Pa. 567 , 517 A.2d 1270 (1986), we held that SEPTA, by virtue of its enabling legislation, qualifies as a Commonwealth agency.

Zager v. Chester Community Charter School

594 Pa. 166 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2007

In excepting to the deemed denial of Zager’s requests, the letter indicated that the documents requested were clearly public records as defined by section 66.1 of the Rightr-toKnow Act, 65 P.S. § 66.1. 3 *170 By letter dated … Brown, 544 Pa. 31, 34 , 674 A.2d 670, 672 (1996), wherein we established that when analyzing whether an organization qualifies as an agency pursuant to the Right-to-Know Act, a critical inquiry is whether the organization

Circle of Seasons Chart Sch v. NW Lehigh SD, Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2024

However, Charter School takes this statutory exemption one step further by asserting that the language of the Charter School Law “establishes a ‘self- executing’ presumption of tax immunity for charter school property.” … The issue before the Commonwealth Court was “what, if anything, a School District was required to prove, so as to qualify for an exemption under [the Assessment Law], once it established that the subject land [was] annexed

Reese v. Danforth

486 Pa. 479 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1979

Margiotti, 371 Pa. 188 , 88 A.2d 892 (1952), while “lower public officials” were only granted a conditional or qualified immunity that disappeared in the face of allegations of wanton, reckless, intentional, and malicious … duties imposed upon him, and whenever it appears that those duties are of a grave and important character, involving in the proper performance of them some of the functions of government, the officer charged with them is clearly

Matthews v. Konieczny

515 Pa. 106 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 1987

Thus, although a single exchange can qualify one as a “customer”, the word connotes at least a capacity to regularly engage in transactions. … It does not end the inquiry; for the plaintiff still bears the burden of establishing causation. Id., 504 Pa. at 163 n. 4, 470 A.2d at 518 n. 4. .

Merrell v. Chartiers Valley School District

579 Pa. 97 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2004

Thus, for a letter of elimination to qualify as a valid adjudication, it must (1) represent a final order, decree, decision, determination or ruling; (2) impact on individual personal or property rights, privileges, immunities … entitlement to a veteran’s preference, the burden falls to the employer to establish that the veteran was not qualified.

Carroll v. County of York

496 Pa. 363 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 1981

For the foregoing reasons, I would hold that the general grant of immunity in section 201 of the Act, 53 P.S. § 5311.201, denies access to the courts for redress for legal injury and clearly, palpably and plainly violates … political subdivisions from suit. 1 Whatever authority this section might give the Legislature to insulate the Commonwealth, our decisions clearly establish that it does not extend to political subdivisions.

Goryeb v. Com. Dept. of Public Welfare

525 Pa. 70 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 17, 1990

enumerated exceptions to immunity under the Sovereign Immunity Act relates to health care. … “Under well established precedent, if plaintiff produces sufficient evidence to demonstrate the mental condition of [the patient] warranted the duty asserted, the hospital would clearly be responsible for injury to the person