Case law

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

Johnson v. City of Philadelphia

93 Pa. Commw. 87 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 1985

The petitioners contend that the facts alleged clearly place ¡them within one of the said exceptions which provides in pertinent part: *90 (b) Acts ¡which, may impose liability. — The following acts by a local agency or ¡ … (Attack at park, a city-owned and operated recreational facility did not establish a cause of action within real property exception.)

Guarrasi v. Scott

25 A.3d 394 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 2011

Financial records of the Unified Judicial System are presumed to be open to any member of the public for inspection or copying during established business hours. … Further judicial immunity is not only immunity from damages, but also immunity from suit. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 , 112 S.Ct. 286 , 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991).

Giant Food Stores, LLC v. Penn Township

167 A.3d 252 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2017

Unlike the majority, I do not see how Penn Township’s decision to deny the intermunicipal transfer in this matter “affect[ed]” a personal or property right, privilege, immunity, duty, liability, or obligation of Giant. … This qualified right, grounded in the source statute, was one that this Court was bound to protect zealously, as a check and balance on executive branch action. See Bray v. McKees-port Hous. Autk, 114 A.3d 442 (Pa.

S. Wise v. Huntingdon County Housing Development Corp.

212 A.3d 1156 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2019

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 … Nonetheless, even assuming arguendo that such is true, the Commonwealth’s breach of its duty does not remove the sovereign immunity bar precluding Wise’s action against the Commonwealth, unless she establishes that her claim

Sakach v. City of Pittsburgh

687 A.2d 34 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 24, 1996

In order for a local agency to be held liable under an exception to immunity, a plaintiff must establish that (1) his or her damages would be recoverable under statutory or common law if the injury were caused by a person … The parties stipulated that Chuckles, a South American River Dolphin, is a wild animal. 4 The statutory exception to immunity for injuries caused by animals in the care, custody or control of the local agency clearly does

Brezinski v. County of Allegheny

694 A.2d 388 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 27, 1997

the *390 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 to judgment as a matter of law. … In so holding, we need not address the County’s argument that it is also immune under the real estate exception to governmental immunity in the Tort Claims Act.

Hidden Creek, L.P. v. Lower Salford Township Authority

129 A.3d 602 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 2015

The authority shall have available for public inspection a detailed itemization of all calculations, clearly showing the maximum fees allowable for each part of the tapping fee and the manner in which the fees were determined … The Authority’s resolutions establishing the applicable tapping fees state, in relevant part: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING TAPPING FEE PURSUANT TO ACT 203 WHEREAS, [Engineer] has performed a study to determine the appropriate

Williams v. Syed

782 A.2d 1090 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2001

The trial court denied the defendants’ post trial motion for summary judgment on the issue of sovereign immunity, but granted the defendants’ post trial motion for judgment n.o.v., holding that the inmate failed to establish … While the Wareham court agreed that a prison is similar to a detention center, they noted that the function of the prison infirmary clearly is to deliver medical care to the inmates and is therefore distinguishable from the

C. DeLuca and DeLuca's Auto Repair and Towing, Inc. v. Hazleton PD and Chief of Police F v. DeAndrea, Jr.

144 A.3d 266 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 28, 2016

DeLuca maintains the Department’s notices of suspension, which received wide publicity in the Hazleton area, plainly and clearly stated DeLuca engaged in “dishonesty or corruption [which] directly or indirectly affects the … For a letter to qualify as an adjudication under 2 Pa.

Hanover Insurance Co. v. State Workers' Insurance Fund

35 A.3d 849 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 2012

The Board was established in furtherance of a public policy extending more than 200 years ago to allow claimants who ordinarily would have been barred by sovereign immunity to have a method of redress against the Commonwealth … if it did not fit within the exception of the statute provided to exempt the immunity.

Byard v. Philadelphia Housing Authority

157 Pa. Commw. 269 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 1993

Here, the act of Byard’s unidentified companion in closing the door on Byard’s finger is clearly a superseding negligent act and the proximate cause of Byard’s injury, which cuts off PHA’s liability. … City of Philadelphia, 531 Pa. 400 , 613 A.2d 1178 (1992) ] then establishes the principle that for a governmental unit to be held liable, active fault that has a direct nexus to the plaintiff is required on the part of the

Warren v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

151 Pa. Commw. 46 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 1992

remedies and to allege facts showing conditions of imprisonment rising to the level of cruel and unusual punishment. 3 Preliminary objections may be sustained where, as a matter of law, the petition for review does not establish … Consequently, to be amenable to suit under section 1983, the Department and Frackville must qualify as persons within the intendment of section 1983. In Will v.

Bullock v. Horn

720 A.2d 1079 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 1998

and remain immune from suit except as the General Assembly shall specifically waive the immunity.” 1 Pa.C.S. § 2310. … Petitioner asserts that a directive of the Department of Corrections, DC-ADM 811, clearly mandates shoes or boots. . A prisoner is generally entitled to two hours of outdoor exercise, weather permitting.

Brimmeier v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

147 A.3d 954 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 2016

The affirmative defense, however, must be clearly applicable on the face of the complaint. … Mandamus is not available to establish legal rights but only to enforce rights that have been established. 11 Sinkiewicz v. Susquehanna Cnty.

Schering-Plough Healthcare Products Sales Corp. v. Commonwealth

805 A.2d 1284 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 2002

[P.L. 86-272] was designed to define clearly a lower limit for the exercise of that power. Clarity that would remove uncertainty was Congress’ primary goal. … First, as detailed above, Congress’ intent was to set a clearly lower limit of activity below which no business can be taxed. Wisconsin Dep’t of Revenue v.

Mastrocola v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

941 A.2d 81 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 2008

The trial court likened preemption to the defense of immunity which must be pleaded as new matter. … SEPTA does not claim that it is immune from any common law tort claim.

Primiano v. City of Philadelphia

739 A.2d 1172 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 1999

Plaintiff noted that the property was the site of a commercial establishment. … The specific language of § 1922 speaks about “ascertaining the intention of the General Assembly” however, there is no need to resort to trying to ascertain the intent of the General Assembly when the language clearly manifests

Wilson v. Ridgway Area School District

141 Pa. Commw. 607 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 1991

In this motion, District also asserted that it was immune based on Crowell v. … Summary judgment is only appropriate when, after examining the record in favor of the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant clearly establishes its entitlement to judgment as a matter

Pastore v. COM., STATE SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUC.

152 Pa. Commw. 111 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 1992

and waives that immunity as to specified categories of claims. … Sovereign immunity pursuant to Chapter 85 of the Judicial Code in that none of the exceptions to immunity are applicable; 2.