Case law

Johnson, A., Aplt. v. Wetzel, J.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 2020

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 778 (2014) (“An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the

Grant v. Riverside Corp.

364 Pa. Super. 593 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 21, 1987

Clearly, from a review of the above criteria, it is not mandatory that a contractor be the general contractor on a construction project to qualify as a statutory employer. … Clearly, this language is distinguishable from our Section 203, in its explicit extension of immunity to all contractors and subcontractors present at the job site and conducting the business of the injured employee’s direct

SEPTA v. City of Phila., Aplts.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2014

The court concluded: “Clearly then, as an agency and instrumentality of the Commonwealth, SEPTA qualifies as an ‘employer’ for purposes of the [Human Relations] Act, subject to the jurisdiction of the [Pennsylvania Human … The fact that the Commonwealth Court did not employ the magic words -- sovereign immunity -- is of no consequence, as the court clearly recognized SEPTA’s enabling statute and its existence as a Commonwealth Agency subject

Feingold v. Hill

360 Pa. Super. 539 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 1987

With respect to Judge Hill, the law in Pennsylvania is well established that judges are absolutely immune from liability for damages when performing judicial acts, even if their actions are in error or performed with malice … Clearly such activity would have fallen within the parameters of Mr. Bala’s duties. As such, Mr. Bala is immune from suit in the instant matter under the protection of quasi-judicial immunity.

Commonwealth v. Packer

568 Pa. 481 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 31, 2002

This interpretation is contrary to the well-established cannon of construction that courts should generally apply qualifying words or phrases to the words immediately preceding them. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1903; Midboe v. … Qualifying words “do not extend to or include other words, phrases, or clauses more remote, unless such extension or inclusion is clearly required by the intent or meaning of the context or disclosed by an examination of

Commonwealth v. Robinson

399 Pa. Super. 199 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 1990

Appellant’s second issue relates to the expert testimony offered by the Commonwealth to establish that the drugs possessed by appellant were for delivery to others, rather than for personal use. … If accepted by the jury, as it clearly was, it provided an adequate basis upon which to conclude that the Commonwealth proved the intent to deliver element of the crime charged. Commonwealth v.

Mollan v. Lindner

544 Pa. 487 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 1996

This Court made clear in Montgomery that, absent statutory classification, the parameters establishing “high public official” status would be delineated by the judiciary on a case-by-case basis, rather than establishing a … Exercising significant policy-making functions as the most important public official in the Borough of Yeadon, Appellee clearly qualifies as a “high public official” under the criteria established in Montgomery .

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

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2025

under the common law” and “held that immunity was not absolute but qualified and its availability depended on the circumstances of each case.” … To 5 No one disputes that Section 5725(b) clearly and unambiguously waives sovereign immunity.

Commonwealth v. Scott

503 Pa. 624 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1983

When the Commonwealth refused to grant immunity, the trial court found that although it did not have the power to grant judicial immunity to Hill, a new trial was warranted based on the contents of the unsworn post-trial … When dissecting a double hearsay statement, the reliability and trustworthiness of each declarant must be independently established.

G. B. List v. Commonwealth

118 Pa. 322 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 1888

The privileges and immunities secured to citizens of each state in the several states, by this clause, are those privileges and immunities which are common to the citizens in the latter states under their constitution and … established in the case we have referred to,.

Peck v. Delaware County Board of Prison Inspectors

572 Pa. 249 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 2002

In those situations, the general contractor who meets the five-part McDonald test qualifies as the statutory employer of the subcontractor’s employee, and is immune from suit by that employee. … Accordingly, we endorse the principle that, for purposes of Section 203 statutory employer immunity, statutory employer status should be found only where all five elements of the McDonald test are clearly met. 2 Turning to

Sphere Drake Insurance v. Philadelphia Gas Works

566 Pa. 541 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 2001

The deferred compensation plan established for PFMC employees qualifies as an eligible deferred compensation plan applicable to employees of a “State, political subdivision of a State, and any agency or instrumentality of … A panel of the Commonwealth Court held that the Parking Authority was a local agency that enjoyed immunity under the Act — even though it was incorporated separately from its affiliated municipality and, thus, hardly qualified

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Board of Revision of Taxes

574 Pa. 707 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 28, 2003

Thus, unlike immunity situations, the property is presumed to be subject to tax unless specifically excluded and the taxpayer must establish that the property is exempt from taxation. … In answering this question, the court explained that in order to qualify for tax exemption it must be established that the property is being used for a public purpose. Id. (citing Pa. Const. Art.

Zizza v. Dresher Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

358 Pa. Super. 600 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 28, 1986

JOHNSON, Judge: We are asked to determine whether the owner of a construction site and the contractor on that site qualify as statutory employers of a subcontractor’s employee, and are thus immune from an action at law for … Appellant Zizza seems to argue in his brief that Dresher must establish both control and occupancy of the Cromby site in order to qualify as a statutory employer of Zizza. Such is not the case.

Preiser v. Rosenzweig

538 Pa. 139 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 1994

Common law accords an absolute privilege of immunity to statements, whether defamatory or not, to pleadings and other papers filed in regular judicial proceedings. … The defendant’s words were held to be subject to a qualified privilege. The proceeding was clearly private in nature.

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. City of Philadelphia

627 Pa. 470 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2014

The • court concluded: “Clearly then, as an agency and instrumentality of the Commonwealth, SEPTA qualifies as an ‘employer’ for purposes of the [Human Relations] Act, subject to the jurisdiction of the [Pennsylvania Human … The fact that the Commonwealth Court did not employ the magic words — sovereign immunity — is of no consequence, as the court clearly recognized SEPTA’s enabling statute and its existence as a Commonwealth Agency subject

Kapil v. Association of Pennsylvania State College & University Faculties

504 Pa. 92 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1983

Thus, it would have been barred if the immunity of Act 152 applied. … Such a dispute falls clearly within the public policy of the Public Employee Relations Act (PERA), Act of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563, No. 195, 43 Pa.C. S.A. § 1101.101, et seq.

Montgomery v. Philadelphia

392 Pa. 178 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 1958

Whereas qualified privilege could be successful only after a full trial, thus placing a government official at the whims and mercy of a jury, the purpose of absolute immunity is to foreclose the possibility of suit. “. . … “It has been argued, however, that free disclosure would be sufficiently encouraged by the granting of a qualified privilege.

Pelagatti v. Cohen

370 Pa. Super. 422 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 1987

As such, they enjoy a qualified immunity only: in the interests of keeping the public informed, newspaper articles are entitled to make fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings and involved parties, witnesses, and … However, the media statements disseminated by Marion, Harvey, and Magarity, even in their reiteration of the contents of privileged judicial documents, were extra-judicial communications protected by a qualified immunity

Heuchert v. State Harness Racing Commission

403 Pa. 440 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 2, 1961

Granting to any corporation, association or individual any special or exclusive privilege or immunity . . .’ … is required is a majority of those actually voting, unless a contrary legislative intention and purpose is very clearly expressed. ...