Case law

WURTH BY WURTH v. City of Philadelphia

136 Pa. Commw. 629 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 1990

insufficient on its face to establish the pleader’s right to relief. … This issue would be ripe only if the City’s Recreation Act defense was firmly established. See 68 P.S. § 477-6.

McKeesport Municipal Water Authority v. McCloskey

690 A.2d 766 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 1997

Summary judgment is only appropriate when, after examining the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party clearly establishes that he is entitled … Simpson, 523 Pa. 235, 239 , 565 A.2d 1153, 1155 (1989) (“Although the Commonwealth traditionally had sovereign immunity from suit, the establishment of the Board of Claims waived that immunity by providing a tribunal whose

Nardella v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority

34 A.3d 300 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2011

Nardella could not establish that the real estate exception to sovereign immunity, Section 8522(b)(4) of the Act commonly known as the Sovereign Immunity Act (Act), 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b)(4), applied in this matter. Ms. … noting that the dangerous condition must derive, originate, or have the real estate as its source in order to fall within the real estate exception, and substances such as ice, snow, or debris on the real estate do not qualify

Jones v. Packel

20 Pa. Commw. 606 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 1, 1975

First, plaintiff requests this Court to strike down sovereign immunity from the body of Pennsylvania law. … This concept of prior restraint advocated by plaintiff is clearly an anathema in a system structured upon the division and delegation of powers among three independent and coequal branches of government.

Robinson v. City of Philadelphia

666 A.2d 1141 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 1995

Petrovitch, 161 Pa.Cmwlth. 261 , 636 A.2d 1248 (1994), states clearly that Agresta was overruled by the Supreme Court in Gray . In our view, Robinson’s omission was not mere inadvertence. … Cmwlth. 655, 634 A.2d 677 (1993), as are arguments which counter well established rules of law. Murphy v.

J. Faucon v. Parkland Area School District

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2025

The Supreme Court explained that the fire chief’s alleged negligence was in the paint removal, and paint removal clearly fell within the exception’s language of the care of the property. Id. at 197. … “the care of the personalty caused a dangerous condition to occur on the real property,” the actual holding in Grieff clearly stated that there was no immunity due to the negligent

Miller v. Erie Metropolitan Transit Authority

152 Pa. Commw. 64 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 1992

Because the word “operate” was commonly defined as a mode of action or to run or control the function of, the van clearly was not operating at the time of the accident as it had ceased movement. … We stated, “Nothing in Love ... requires that an entire *68 vehicle be in motion to establish ‘operation’ for purposes of the vehicle liability exception to the Code.

Johnson v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

91 Pa. Commw. 587 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 1985

Exceptions to governmental immunity. … Clearly they did.

Townships of Springdale v. Mowod

23 Pa. Commw. 298 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 1976

The defendants raise the issues of sovereign immunity and laches. … Article III, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1968 provides that: “No bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except a general appropriation bill

Saft v. Upper Dublin Township

161 Pa. Commw. 158 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1993

However, neither the plain language of Section 8541 nor well-established precedent supports Appellants’ interpretations of the law. … Section 8541 invokes the bar of immunity in terms which clearly negate any right or interest of Appellants, much less a vested cause of action, prior to their signing the agreements of sale.

Gordon v. Lewistown Hospital

714 A.2d 539 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 1998

Although it was not necessary to a determination to apply the immunity provisions of the Federal Act in Allison , we clearly recognized its applicability in this Commonwealth. This is true although Dr. … Therefore, despite the fact that the hospital is immune from Dr.

Tulio v. Commonwealth

79 Pa. Commw. 305 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 1984

Pew is barred under the doctrine of judicial immunity. 1 ' In addressing the first of the respondents ’ preliminary objections, we note- that in this Commonwealth it is well established that a court of equity lacks jurisdiction … An .important element which must be established before this immunity can apply, however, is whether or not the actions complained of were performed within the quasi-judicial function.

Vespaziani v. Commonwealth

40 Pa. Commw. 54 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 1979

Pennsylvania Department of Highways, 479 Pa. 384 , 388 A.2d 709 (1978), that the Commonwealth is no longer immune from suit by virtue of the *58 common law doctrine of sovereign immunity, and (2) since the Board of Arbitration … of Claims was established to provide a forum for obtaining a remedy against the Commonwealth where none existed due to the sovereign’s immunity.

White v. City of Philadelphia

712 A.2d 345 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 1998

Neither that provision nor any other that this Court has found clearly provides that such an act of designation and taking over constitutes vesting ownership of the street, including the sidewalk, with the Commonwealth. 3 … In view of the comprehensive scheme established in the immunity and exceptions provisions of the Judicial Code, and in view of the applicable provisions of the State Highway Law, the Court cannot conclude that the legislature

Mazin v. Bureau of Professional & Occupational Affairs

950 A.2d 382 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 2008

sovereign immunity. … Initially, we do not believe that he has established a clear legal right to relief. Dr.

Koppenhaver v. Department of Community & Economic Development

898 A.2d 654 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 3, 2006

Bd. of Revision of Taxes, 574 Pa. 707 , 833 A.2d 710 (2003), for the proposition that a Commonwealth agency will lose its tax immune status if it acts outside its authorized purpose or outside the scope of its immunity. 9 … They raise legal issues clearly beyond the Department’s scope of review under 53 Pa.C.S. § 8211(d). Bundy; Mellinger, Property *667 Owners.

McHale v. COLE

119 Pa. Commw. 334 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 1988

However, evidence was submitted to the trial court which established that MCS’ designation does not entitle it, in this case, to immunity as a governmental agency. … The record clearly establishes that Cole was a voluntary out-patient and that on three occasions immediately prior to the rape, he requested in-patient treatment.

Steinberg v. Commonwealth

46 Pa. Commw. 105 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 1979

Pennsylvania, 479 Pa. 384 , 388 A.2d 709 (1978), wherein the judicially developed concept of sovereign immunity in Pennsylvania was abandoned. … Failing to adhere to established procedures and policies for operation of the Center; c. Failing to provide adequate and necessary security and protection for the employees of the Center; d.

Bufford v. Pa. Dept. of Transportation

670 A.2d 751 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 1996

The critical issue before the Court is not whether DOT was negligent in maintaining Bufford’s record; clearly, as found by the trial judge, there was negligence in this case, such that it would support a common law cause … It was likewise established that the suspension information was made available to third parties, such as police departments and insurance companies.

Fagan v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSP. OF COM.

946 A.2d 1123 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 2008

Its two main arguments invoked immunity and the plaintiffs’ failure to establish causation necessary for a negligence action. Factually, the plaintiffs submitted the expert’s report previously referenced. … In order for a Commonwealth party such as PennDOT to be found liable, a plaintiff must also establish that the cause of action falls under one of the specifically enumerated exceptions to immunity. 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b).