Case law

Tate v. Commonwealth

84 A.3d 762 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2014

"Summary judgment may be granted only in those cases in which the record clearly shows that there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” … State-designated highway except where department regulations provide otherwise. (2) Local authorities shall obtain approval of the department prior to erecting any traffic signal except in a municipality with a traffic engineer qualified

Smolow v. PA. DEPT. OF REV.

119 Pa. Commw. 324 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 1988

and remain immune from suit except as the General Assembly shall waive the immunity. … the legislature could declare sovereign immunity to be constitutional.

Johnson v. City of Philadelphia

657 A.2d 87 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 1995

Additionally, Johnson asserts that retroactive application of Gray is inappropriate because the Supreme Court established a new principle by overruling the Commonwealth Court’s decision in the same case. … However, an entire reading of Ludwin clearly demonstrates that, although the City could be held liable to PATCO under the terms of the lease, the City cannot be held directly liable to an injured party.

Moles v. Borough of Norristown

780 A.2d 787 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 2001

Summary judgment is only appropriate when, after examining the record, there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the movant clearly established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. … Appellants contend that their allegations establish liability on the part of the Borough for Gep-perts damage to the Woolworth Building.

ROSS v. KEITT

10 Pa. Commw. 375 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 1973

“Thus, where the obligations of defendants under a contract are clearly joint, all the obligors must be joined as defendants. Joint owners of property causing an injury to plaintiff must be joined as defendants. … This immunity has been held to extend to actions in equity. Philadelphia Life Insurance Company v. Commonwealth, 410 Pa. 571 , 190 A. 2d 111 (1963).

Zauflik v. Pennsbury School District

72 A.3d 773 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 2013

Therefore, this Court cannot sanction a political subdivision by ordering an express waiver of its governmental immunity, consistent with the well-established precedent that governmental immunity is an absolute defense that … lack of support as to be clearly erroneous here.

Rieger Ex Rel. Rieger v. Altoona Area School District

768 A.2d 912 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2001

of the immunity exceptions enumerated in 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542. … Section 8546 of the Act provides in pertinent part: Defense of official immunity.

Jackson Township Volunteer Fire Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

140 Pa. Commw. 620 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1991

The fire compa *624 ny contends that Wallet was not injured and that if he was, he has not established that his injury was causally related to his work. … However, this case is clearly distinguishable from a coal miner’s pneumoconiosis case, and our holding is not nearly so broad.

Speece v. Borough of North Braddock

145 Pa. Commw. 568 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 1992

The city asserted immunity. The Supreme Court affirmed this court’s finding of immunity. … In the present case, at the time the hose burst, the two fire trucks were stopped, were being used to pump water to the fire, and were clearly not being “operated”, as defined by the Supreme Court in Love .

Hall v. Kiger

795 A.2d 497 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 2002

The court emphasized that it is the public’s interest rather than the interest of the official that supports the establishment of an absolute privilege. … Whether a police chief is qualified is a pertinent subject to borough council, because that governmental body is responsible under Section 1121 of The Borough Code for the appointment of the police chief. 53 P.S. § 46121.

Salix State Bank v. Commonwealth, Department of Banking

36 Pa. Commw. 120 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 16, 1978

The Department’s assertion of immunity from suit is without merit. Though it has been held that this *123 immunity extends to actions in equity, Boss v. Keitt, 10 Pa. Commonwealth. … officials from performing affirmative acts are not within the rule of immunity.

Zurenda v. Commonwealth

46 Pa. Commw. 67 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 1979

We will consider the objections seriatim. 2 In ruling on preliminary objections, we accept as true all well and clearly pleaded facts as well as inferences fairly deducible therefrom, but not conclusions or averments of law … rule of immunity.”

Taylor v. Northeast Bradford School District

101 A.3d 144 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 2014

The trial court then concluded that [t]he gymnasium partition clearly falls into the third category. … If the latter, the District enjoys immunity.

M. Renner v. The Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County

195 A.3d 1070 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 2018

It tests the legal sufficiency of the challenged pleadings and will be sustained only in cases where the pleader has clearly failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. … Court established waiver of the common pleas court’s sovereign immunity.

Comyn v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

141 Pa. Commw. 53 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 1991

Further, it is a *56 well established rule that in order to grant a petition to open a default judgment, the following three criteria must be met: (1) the petition to open must be promptly filed; (2) there must be a reasonable … The City argues that governmental immunity under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8541 is a meritorious *59 defense to Appellee’s claim.

Cherry v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency

153 Pa. Commw. 210 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 1993

PHEAA’s determination of what constitutes a “qualified applicant” is clearly within its scope of responsibility and is, for the reasons discussed above, not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm. … Definitions The following words and phrases when used in this act shall have the meanings given to them in this section unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: "Qualified applicant.”

Madden v. Jeffes

85 Pa. Commw. 414 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1984

Although the record does not clearly establish exactly what “suspension” of PAL activities entailed, we gather that the prison officials prohibited inmates from conducting any corporate *416 business, but did not actually … Petitioners must establish that they have a clear legal right, that the respondents have a corresponding legal duty, and that there is no other adequate or appropriate remedy at law. Francis v.

Beaver v. Coatesville Area School District

845 A.2d 955 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2004

“Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer *958 should be'sustained only where the pleadings are clearly insufficient to establish a right to relief. … As we stated above, we agree with Appellants that the facts as set forth in the complaint do not establish that Appellant was an employee of an independent contractor.

Dubaskas v. Commonwealth

81 A.3d 167 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 2013

The Supreme Court further explained that “the exception to sovereign immunity pertaining to Board-of-Claims jurisdiction defines the extent of the Commonwealth’s statutory exception from sovereign immunity for claims arising … [[Image here]] While more general clarification of the relationship between sovereign immunity and jurisdiction may be appropriate in the arena at large, for present purposes, we regard sovereign immunity as a jurisdictional

Tackett v. Pine Richland School District

793 A.2d 1022 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2002

Local government agencies are generally immune from tort liability. Section 8541 of the Judicial Code. This “governmental immunity,” however, is not absolute. … 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