Case law

M.J. Brouillette v. T. Wolf, Governor

213 A.3d 341 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2019

Respondents also assert that the Senate and House Respondents are protected by legislative immunity and/or sovereign immunity. … to which immunity has been waived.

Rousseau v. City of Philadelphia

100 Pa. Commw. 173 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 29, 1986

That no duty was owed by the city is also established by recognizing that the agreement to inspect the work constituted a benefit which runs to the interest of the federal government, and not to appellant. … Appellant has thus not satisfied the strictures of the immunity exception. 2.

Cuvo v. City of Easton

678 A.2d 424 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1996

Section 2 provides that “the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” … “Durational” residency requirements “penalize those persons who have traveled from one place to another to establish a new residence during the qualifying period.” Dunn v.

Commonwealth v. Bendas

131 Pa. Commw. 488 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 1990

Thus, the majority holds that an abuse of this authority is tantamount to a breach of duty under the Judicial Code’s highway exception to sovereign immunity. … A dangerous condition of highways under the jurisdiction of a *495 Commonwealth agency created by potholes or sinkholes or other similar conditions created by natural elements, except that the claimant to recover must establish

E.P. Schmidt as the Administratrix of the Estate of G.J. Schmidt v. PA DOT; ~ Appeal of: DOT

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 11, 2024

Clearly, the exception to the Commonwealth’s immunity is not coterminous with PennDOT’s rights and responsibilities. … adequately established that the tree was a dangerous condition “of” the Commonwealth realty.

Clark v. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

962 A.2d 692 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 2008

To hold the Commonwealth party liable, the plaintiff also must establish that the cause of action falls under one of the exceptions to sovereign immunity contained in section 8522(b), 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b). … The Clarks argue that DOT’s negligent actions clearly are encompassed within this exception to sovereign immunity. In support of this position, the Clarks rely on the testimony of Karl Miller. Mr.

Miller v. Commonwealth

133 Pa. Commw. 327 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 1990

of juris *331 diction was clearly erroneous, Akron Borough v. … Sovereign immunity, established under Art. 1, § 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and statutorily instituted by the General Assembly, 1 Pa.C.S. § 2310, has been waived only in those instances enumerated under the provisions

McDonald v. Penn Hills Township School Board

7 Pa. Commw. 339 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1972

However, as well as being a creature of the Legislature, it is also a political subdivision created by the Legislature and clearly within the context of the Local Agency Law.” 219 Pa. … The 1968 Constitution, however, necessitated a change in this situation, Section 9 of Article 5 establishing that there must be a right of appeal from any administrative agency to a court of record.

Nardo v. City of Philadelphia

988 A.2d 740 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 2010

Although Section 8542 states that there is an exception to immunity for negligence with regard to the care, custody or control of real property in the *746 possession of the local agency, it clearly states that liability … Here, although the contractor was never identified, City and Commission employees established that an unknown independent contractor did construct the alleged defective garden.

Frank v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

96 Pa. Commw. 221 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 2, 1986

. *224 The appellant contends here that the facts alleged place this action within the “real property exception” established by Section 8542(b) (3) of the Judicial Code, which pertinently provides: (b) Acts which may impose … Such language clearly evinces the legislative intent to prevent trespassers from availing themselves of the advantage otherwise created by the real property immunity exception.

Zern Et Ux. v. Muldoon

101 Pa. Commw. 258 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 1986

The history and scope of that provision of the constitution are fully and clearly set forth in Com. ex rel. Police Pension Fund Assn. v. … The men could enter burning buildings, but were explicitly ordered not to interfere with firefighters. 7 In Flagiello, the Supreme Court expressly rejected the charitable immunity doctrine as established in Boyd I and Boyd

DEPT. OF ENVIRON. RESOURCES v. Myers

135 Pa. Commw. 526 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 1990

DER maintains that the trial court erred when it denied DER’s motion for judgment n.o.v. because Myers failed to establish that he satisfied the requirements of the personal property exception to sovereign immunity. … Commonwealth Ct. 86, 91 , 476 A.2d 998, 1000 (1984), we stated: 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

Gramlich v. Lower Southampton Township

838 A.2d 843 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 2003

One exception to this general immunity, known as the “streets exception,” exists where there is [a] dangerous condition of streets owned by the local agency, except that the claimant to recover must establish that the dangerous … City of Philadelphia, 127 Pa.Cmwlth. 466 , 561 A.2d 1334 (1989), affirmed, 526 Pa. 300 , 585 A.2d 1003 (1991) (concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish an exception to governmental immunity because she offered only

McKinney v. City of Philadelphia

123 Pa. Commw. 144 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 1989

Questions presented are essentially whether governmental immunity under the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C. … The instant record clearly demonstrates that the order from which the City appealed is interlocutory in nature and that the City has failed to otherwise establish its appealability.

Musheno v. Lock Haven University

132 Pa. Commw. 643 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 11, 1990

Summary judgment is properly granted where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party has clearly established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Gump v. … ; and (2) the cause of action must fall within one of the eight exceptions to governmental immunity.

Fidler v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

83 Pa. Commw. 155 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 1984

was in the trial court proceeding 5 before, or as a part of, the third-party settlement. *164 Of course, the subrogation right as provided in Section 319 of the Act to which the insurance carrier herein is entitled, is a qualified … The 1974 version of this Section granted absolute immunity to the employer for its negligently inflicted injuries to its employe. Tsarnas v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 488 Pa. 513 , 412 A.2d 1094 (1980).

V. Balentine, Individually and as Administratrix v. Chester Water Authority

140 A.3d 69 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 2016

This Court held that the allegations were sufficient to establish that the truck was in “operation” at the time of injury under the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity because it was essentially alleged that … Unlike the majority, the statute does not qualify the word “operation.” If the movement of the vehicle causes the injury, the vehicle is deemed to be in operation.

S. Brewington v. City of Philadelphia and Walter G. Smith Elementary School -- Appeal of: S. Brewington and J. Brewington

149 A.3d 901 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 2016

It is anciently established that consideration of the intention of an owner regarding whether a chattel has been permanently placed on real property is relevant only where the … The plaintiff was injured when she struck the hardwood floor, which is clearly not personalty.

Harding v. Galyias

117 Pa. Commw. 371 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 1988

Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981). 9 A local government qualifies as a “person” who may be directly liable under 42 U.S.C. §1983 . Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). … The opinion contains no discussion of governmental immunity and no indication that it had even been asserted. Another prerequisite to all actions claimed to fall under the eight exceptions to immunity in 42 Pa. C.

La Frankie v. Miklich

152 Pa. Commw. 163 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 1992

have violated La Frankie’s constitutional rights. 1 II In an action for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff has the burden to establish thát the defendant initiated the underlying criminal proceeding without probable cause … A review of the record clearly indicates that Trooper Miklich did not raise the affirmative defense of La Frankie’s guilt but, on the contrary, merely denied La Frankie’s allegations that the Trooper acted without probable