Case law

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

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.

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.

A. Turner & T. Govan-Turner v. Lower Merion S.D.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 10, 2024

School District’s immunity. … The School District qualifies as a local agency.

Waslow v. Pennsylvania Department of Education

984 A.2d 575 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 2009

Einstein alleged that, as a result, it was unable to timely provide the IEPs required by law for Einstein’s qualifying special education students. (Petition, ¶¶ 6, 20-21.) … , immunities, duties, liabilities, or obligations.

Brown v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

11 A.3d 1054 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 2011

Summary judgment is appropriate where the record clearly demonstrates that: (1) there are no genuine issues of material fact, and (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Dean v. … The Commonwealth is immune from suit except where the General Assembly has specifically waived immunity. 1 Pa.C.S. § 2310.

Firearms Owners Against Crime - Inst. for Legal Leg. & Ed. Action v. Col. R. Evanchick, Comm. PSP

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2023

Regarding sovereign immunity, although Rule 1030 indicates that immunity ordinarily must be raised in New Matter, “a party may raise the affirmative defense of immunity as a preliminary objection where it is clearly applicable … Mandamus differs from declaratory relief in that mandamus “is not available to establish legal rights but only to enforce rights that have been established.” Sinkiewicz v. Susquehanna Cnty.

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Hussey

138 Pa. Commw. 436 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 1991

In more general language applicable to the case sub judice, the Supreme Court stated: *441 We believe the Legislature has clearly precluded the imposition of liability on itself or its local agencies for acts of third parties … Although a review of the record indicates that Hussey’s contention may not be entirely correct, it has been established that governmental immunity cannot be waived. Tax Claim Unit of Northampton County v.

Cassidy v. Abington Township

131 Pa. Commw. 637 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 1990

Hughes was clearly authorized to question Appellant, whom he had probable cause to believe had committed the crimes charged, and the admissibility of evidence secured from the interrogation is not before us. … A motion for summary judgment may properly be granted when the moving party establishes that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.

Cornelius v. Roberts

71 A.3d 345 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2013

This result is consistent with Crowell and Powell, which establish that' a governmental party is not immune from liability when its negligence, along with a third party’s ■negligence, causes harm. 549 Pa. at 52 , 700 A.2d … with the physical operation of a vehicle beyond ‘actual driving that will implicate the vehicle liability exception, the Commonwealth Court correctly concluded that the form of negligence alleged by the- Regesters does not qualify

Frazier v. COM. PA STATE, POLICE

845 A.2d 253 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2004

By its enactment of § 3105, the legislature has established a duty upon drivers of emergency vehicles to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons. … Clearly, the emergency vehicle doctrine reduces the duties of drivers of emergency vehicles to comply with some provisions of the Vehicle Code. However, it does not totally abolish duties of those drivers.

Sweigard v. Commonwealth

5 Pa. Commw. 637 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 30, 1972

The tragedy of which this case was born makes it clearly understandable why the plaintiffs, while acknowledging that these opinions control the instant case, urge upon us to make “an independent analysis” of the longstanding … Commonwealth Ct. 477 (1972), that there is no divergence of view upon the question of sovereign immunity in our highest court.

Mannella ex rel. Mannella v. Port Authority of Allegheny County

982 A.2d 130 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 2009

Port Authority of Allegheny County, 524 Pa. 1 , 568 A.2d 931 (1990), the General Assembly created exceptions to that immunity when it enacted what is commonly know as the Sovereign Immunity Act. 3 Section 8522 of the Judicial … 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

Delate v. Kolle

667 A.2d 1218 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 1, 1995

After discovery, Appellees moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were immune from suit since they were acting solely in their capacities as members of the ZHB, and thus Delate had failed to establish a cause of action … Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is clearly entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pa.R.C.P. No. 1035(b); Downing v.

Bethlehem Area School District v. Zhou

976 A.2d 1284 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 2009

By order dated Januaiy 15, 2009, we concluded that the order of the Appeals Panel qualifies as a collateral order pursuant to Pa. … We further note that, while the Manual itself has not been entered into the record in this matter, its own plain language as excerpted by the District in its brief clearly indicates that ODR offers to provide "one free copy

Z. Leger v. G.L. Martin

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 19, 2026

Leger also argued that the record includes ample evidence to establish that the Township had notice of a dangerous condition at the intersection to defeat governmental immunity. Citing Dr. … immunity.

Manzetti v. Mercy Hospital of Pittsburgh

741 A.2d 827 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 1999

Appellants question whether Appellees are entitled to summary judgment under the immunity provisions of the HCQIA; whether Appellees are entitled to immunity under the HCQIA from claims of money damages; and whether the immunity … In order to qualify for this immunity, the professional review body must take the professional review action: (1) in the reasonable belief that the action was taken in the furtherance of quality health care, (2) after a reasonable

State Workmen's Insurance Fund v. Caparo Real Estate Inc.

160 Pa. Commw. 581 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 1993

, clearly stated situations, and as previously determined, it is the duty of this court to strictly construe this statute. … In Specter , the Supreme Court established the analysis to be used to determine whether various agencies and authorities created by the General Assembly are to be considered "the Commonwealth”.

Higby Development, LLC v. Sartor

954 A.2d 77 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 2008

to establish that Ledbetter’s conduct fell outside the protection of the Tort Claims Act. … However, a limited exception to this Rule has been created allowing the raising of the affirmative defense of governmental immunity as a preliminary objection when it is clearly applicable on the face of the complaint and

Finn v. Rendell

990 A.2d 100 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 2010

Section 3575(a) established within the State Treasury a restricted account to be known as “the criminal justice enhancement account.” … absolute immunity pursuant to 1 Pa.C.S. § 2310.”