Case law

R. Brown-Boyd, of the Estate of B. Watts v. SEPTA and S. Gonzales

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2024

Summary judgment should be granted “only in those cases where the record clearly demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact and 4 The Pennsylvania Association for Justice has filed an amicus curiae … SEPTA maintains Brown-Boyd “failed to adduce admissible evidence to establish causation or . . . a statutory exception to immunity” under Rule 1035.2(2). SEPTA’s Br. at 33.

T.D. King v. The Philadelphia Parking Auth.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2024

Qualified Immunity Third, Driver contends that qualified immunity defense does not protect official conduct that violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials and public servants “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Jennison Family Ltd. Partnership v. Montour School District

802 A.2d 1257 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 2002

In contrast, each of the four instances where the word “may” was employed clearly related to permissive acts. … Section 6 of LER-TA, 72 P.S. § 4727, which establishes an appeal procedure regarding reassessments and exemptions, is clearly conditioned upon someone seeking a “tax exemption pursuant to ordinances or resolutions adopted

DiMino v. Borough of Pottstown

129 Pa. Commw. 154 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 1989

It is well established that an entry of summary judgment may be granted only in cases where the right is clear and free from doubt. Consumer Party of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 510 Pa. 158 , 507 A.2d 323 (1986). … Bicycling, although not specifically enumerated in Section 2(3) of the Recreation Act, 68 P.S. § 477-2(3) which defines “recreational purposes,” 7 is clearly a type of use this Court has determined to be “recreational.”

Downing v. Philadelphia Housing Authority

148 Pa. Commw. 225 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 28, 1992

While PGW is a local agency for the purposes of governmental immunity, PHA, a local housing authority, is considered a Commonwealth agency for the purposes of sovereign immunity. Crosby v. Kotch, 135 Pa. … Summary judgment is only appropriate when, after examining the record in favor of the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant clearly establishes its entitlement to judgment as a matter

Edmondson v. Zetusky

674 A.2d 760 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 1996

The Mayor asserts that Edmondson’s own evidence clearly establishes that she made no misrepresentations because he admitted in his deposition that she never expressly told him she had the sole authority to hire him. … The only way the Mayor could be stripped of her official immunity is if Edmondson established that her conduct amounted to “willful misconduct.” Uram v. County of Allegheny, 130 Pa.Cmwlth. 148 , 567 A.2d 753 (1989).

Costar Marine Tax Assessment Appeal

33 Pa. Commw. 447 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 2, 1978

Here, under the applicable lease; the building constructed by Appellants was clearly their property, not public property, and we must conclude therefore that it is not exempt from real estate taxes *451 under state law as … It is, of course, an established principle of law that a state and its political subdivisions cannot constitutionally levy a tax directly against the United States, its property or instrumentalities, in the absence of an

Camp Hachshara Moshava of New York v. Wayne County Board for Assessment & Revision of Taxes

47 A.3d 1271 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 23, 2012

, the entity does not qualify as an institution of purely public charity. … Longwood’s public park and cultural facilities fall clearly within the scope of burdens that are routinely shouldered by government.

Gump v. Chartiers-Houston School District

125 Pa. Commw. 596 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 1989

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. Kuehner v. Parsons, 107 Pa. … R.C.P 1030'requires that all affirmative defenses, including immunity from suit, shall be pled in a responsive pleading as a “New Matter.”

Log Cabin Property, LP v. PA LCB

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 27, 2022

This Court added: [T]he Court recognizes that the time established by the General Assembly for [the] PLCB to implement a direct shipment [SO] process has long passed. … and official immunity and remain immune from suit except as the General Assembly shall specifically waive the immunity.

Olon v. Commonwealth

147 Pa. Commw. 22 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 1992

Initially, we note that preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer will be sustained only where a complaint is clearly insufficient to establish a right to relief, and any doubt must be resolved in favor of overruling … , the department was immune from local land use restrictions.

Martinowski v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

916 A.2d 717 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 27, 2006

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 … Because Appellant failed to establish a statutory or common law cause of action against DOT, this Court need not address whether Appellant set forth an exception to sovereign immunity.

Mitchell v. City of Philadelphia

141 Pa. Commw. 695 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 1991

Assuming arguendo that Healy was an invitee, there would clearly be a duty of care on the City’s part if Mitchell’s expert testimony were found to be both competent and credible by a trier of fact. … This is enthusiastically countered by Mitchell’s counsel’s assertions that the testimony presented at trial would establish a duty of care, even if Healy were a trespasser.

Harris v. PA Department of Corrections

178 A.3d 945 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 2018

. § 12132, provides: [N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services … , which, if asserted, would preclude the relief. 6 Section 761 of the Judicial Code establishes this Court’s original jurisdiction and provides, in pertinent part: (a) General

Pennsylvania Federation of Dog Clubs v. Commonwealth

105 A.3d 51 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2014

Further, Section 1002(b) of the DLRA establishes that: The secretary may declare that there is a surplus of money in the [DLRA]. … Clearly, if the Commonwealth can deposit $100,000,000 back into the MCARE Fund, it can deposit $4,000,000 back into the DLRA.

Quakertown Borough v. Richland Township

28 Pa. Commw. 180 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 1977

Because the Court found no indication in the Act which authorizes the establishment of pre-release centers that the legislature intended the Bureau to be immune from local zoning, nor had the legislature evinced an intent … Clearly, the objectives of zoning regulations are far more comprehensive than the objectives of the Act.

Lerro Ex Rel. Lerro v. Upper Darby Township

798 A.2d 817 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 20, 2002

In short, the Dog and Rabies Ordinance does not establish a duty in the Township to Appellants that can be enforced in a private right of action. … Clearly, Section 21, which relates to “vicious dogs,” is such an abrogated provision. Appellants’ second claim is based upon the Township’s alleged failure to comply with the State Dog Law.

Pagnotti v. Lancaster Township

751 A.2d 1226 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 16, 2000

The trial court determined that Appellants provided no evidence to establish that Maple Grove Park is improved land outside the purview of the RUA; rather, the trial court found, as a matter of law, that Maple Grove Park … Clearly, Maple Grove Park bears no resemblance to Penn’s Landing.

Harding v. City of Philadelphia

777 A.2d 1249 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 2001

to governmental immunity was inapplicable to accidents involving bicycles. … The City points out that it is well established that exceptions to governmental immunity are to be narrowly construed. Love v. City of Philadelphia, 518 Pa. 870 , 543 A.2d 531 (1988).

Pennsylvania State University v. State Employees' Retirement Board

880 A.2d 757 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2005

. § 5102, of its participating employees, for the purpose of establishing and administering the employees’ retirement accounts with SERS. 21. … Consequently, the Board's interpretation of the retirement statute and regulations may not be overturned, unless it is clearly erroneous. Id. .