Case law

Finn v. City of Philadelphia

165 Pa. Commw. 255 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 1994

Snyder clearly stated that the critical word in the real estate exception language is “of’ in the phrase “[a] dangerous condition of Commonwealth agency real estate.” … Instead, Finn’s complaint clearly establishes that the accumu *265 lation of grease on the sidewalk was deposited by cars and trucks which were previously parked there.

Pennsylvania Gas & Water Co. v. Kassab

14 Pa. Commw. 564 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 1974

The pollution which will thus occur will violate the plaintiffs’ rights as established in Art. … This allegation is denied generally in plaintiffs’ reply to new matter and is there qualified by the plaintiffs’ assertion that the specific relief prayed for in the complaint, a restraining order, is not within the powers

Smith v. PORTER TP., CLINTON COUNTY

141 Pa. Commw. 244 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 1991

Definitions The following words and phrases when used in this chapter shall have, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the meanings given to them in this section: * * * * * * "Employee.” … damages suffered as a result of Fairview Township’s alleged negligence in failing to hire a competent sewage enforcement officer, failing to ascertain that the individual serving in that capacity was properly trained and qualified

Kuzel v. Krause

658 A.2d 856 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 8, 1995

A claim for wrongful discharge is made out when the plaintiff establishes that his or her discharge is a violation of a clearly definable right that “strikes at the heart of citizens’ social right, duties and responsibilities … Because of our Supreme Court’s interpretation of 42 Pa.C.S. § 8550, willful misconduct requires Employees here to establish more than wrongful discharge to make the defense of official immunity unavailable to Krause.

Lambert v. Katz

8 A.3d 409 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 2010

To defeat the defense of sovereign immunity, the plaintiff must also establish that his or her allegations fall within one of the nine enumerated exceptions to sovereign immunity set forth in Section 8522(b) of the Code. … Under this definition, the shoulder is clearly part of the highway.

Allen v. County of Wayne

88 A.3d 1035 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2013

Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred by failing to address his claim that improper maintenance of the lawn tractor’s reverse warning mechanism qualified as an exception to governmental immunity. … The immunity defense, however, must be clearly applicable on the face of the complaint. Id.

Marker v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

677 A.2d 345 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 1996

realty as required by the Sovereign Immunity Act. 2. … Clearly, Marker had the burden in this matter and the record reveals that Marker failed to satisfy his burden. Therefore, the trial court erred in not granting DOT’s motion for post-trial relief.

Petula v. Mellody

158 Pa. Commw. 212 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 30, 1993

Summary judgment is only appropriate when, after examining the record in favor of the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant clearly establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of … Malia and Goralski clearly do not stand for the broad proposition that school superintendents are immune from suit in a defamation action.

Evans v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

149 Pa. Commw. 376 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 1992

8522(b) sovereign immunity exception. … In the present case, the undisputed facts clearly reveal that Andrea Denise Evans’ injuries stemmed from the attack perpetrated by three female SEPTA passengers.

Valentine Co. v. Commonwealth

973 A.2d 1101 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 2009

The [Temple Act] has clearly authorized increased financial assistance to Temple from the Commonwealth. … Thus, unlike immunity situations, the property is presumed to be subject to a lax unless specifically excluded and the taxpayer must establish that the property is exempt from taxation.

Jacobs v. Merrymead Farm, Inc.

799 A.2d 980 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 7, 2002

Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer should be sustained only where the pleadings are clearly insufficient to establish a right to relief. Any doubt must be resolved in favor of overruling the demurrer. … The affirmative defense, however, must be clearly applicable on the face of the complaint.

Combs v. Borough of Ellsworth

151 Pa. Commw. 21 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1992

The School District filed the same preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer as formerly, alleging both immunity from liability, and the failure of appellants to set forth facts establishing any exception to immunity … Appellants argue that their complaint clearly established that the School District was under a duty to provide a safe school bus stop for minor appellant, that it was negligent in breaching said duty, and that this breach

Roe v. Pennsylvania Game Commission

147 A.3d 1244 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2016

Thus, “[a]l-though the Commonwealth traditionally had sovereign immunity from suit, the establishment of the Board ... waived that immunity by providing a tribunal whose specific duty was to entertain contract actions against … The affirmative defense, however, must be clearly applicable on the face of the complaint.

Commonwealth ex rel. Milk Marketing Board v. Sunnybrook Dairies, Inc.

32 Pa. Commw. 313 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 2, 1977

Alternatively, Sunnybrook argues that the doctrine of sovereign immunity should be abrogated altogether; clearly an untenable position. See Pa. Const, art. I, §11; Department of Public Welfare v. … The Justices were in agreement that waiver and consent were required, finding it in the Act of May 20, 1937, P.L. 728, as amended, 72 P.S. §4651-1 et seq., establishing the Board of Arbitration of Claims.

Dorsey v. Redman

22 A.3d 274 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 4, 2011

Therefore, Register qualifies as an employee of a "local agency.” 9 . … Implicit in the idea that officials have some immunity — absolute or qualified — for their acts, is a recognition that they may err.

Bucks County Community College v. Bucks County Board of Assessment Appeals

147 Pa. Commw. 505 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 1992

We are asked to decide whether a Community College established pursuant to the Community College Act of 1963 (CC Act) 1 is an “instrumentality of the Commonwealth” and thereby immune from local taxation. 2 *507 On June 28 … IMMUNITY OF THE SOVEREIGN FROM TAXATION More than a half century ago, our Supreme Court held that a political subdivision cannot tax real estate owned by the Commonwealth “unless it points to a statute clearly authorizing

Gallagher v. COM. OF PA., BUR. OF CORR.

118 Pa. Commw. 516 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 1988

A number of recent cases establish that this section is inapplicable to this case. The exceptions to the rules of immunity must be strictly construed and narrowly interpreted. Mascaro v. … Those cell bars are clearly fixtures and hence part of the real property. Appellant asks that we also view those bars as a defective “ladder”.

Miseo v. Ross Township Police Department

147 Pa. Commw. 263 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 1992

Because traffic signals are power-operated traffic-control devices, flares cannot qualify as traffic signals. … Township, liability cannot be imposed on Township under the governmental immunity exception at 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(b)(4).

Davidow v. Anderson

83 Pa. Commw. 86 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 1984

S. §8522(b) (3); or, (2) whether or not the above agreement establishes a Commonwealth interest in real estate which would waive a sovereign immunity defense on the part of the Commission pursuant to 42 Pa. C. … We interpret this section as being evidence of an intent on the part of the General Assembly to exempt the sovereign from immunity only in specific, clearly-stated situations and that it is our duty, therefore, strictly to

Page v. City of Philadelphia

25 A.3d 471 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2011

To defeat the defense of sovereign immunity, Page must also establish that his claim falls within one of the nine enumerated exceptions to sovereign immunity set forth in Section 8522(b) of the Sovereign Immunity Act. … To the extent that Page attempts to establish that the exception to sovereign immunity under Section 8522(b)(5) of the Sovereign Immunity Act is applicable, we must also disagree.