Case law

Pettineo v. City of Philadelphia Law Department-Claims Division

721 A.2d 65 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 4, 1998

In its answer to Pettineo’s complaint, the City contended that it was immune from suit and raised the defense of governmental immunity under Section 8541 of the Act. … Thus, we hold it was error to grant the City’s post-trial motion for judgment n.o.v. because the jury’s verdict was not clearly incorrect as a matter of law. Accordingly, we will reverse the trial court’s decision.

M. Mazur v. J. Cuthbert

186 A.3d 490 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 2018

qualify as a “pleading.” … where the defense is clearly applicable on the face of the complaint.”

Freedman v. City of Allentown

128 Pa. Commw. 126 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 1989

personnel” as contemplated by 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b)(2). *130 Therefore, following the principle set forth in Steinberg , we hold that the functions performed by parole officers do not qualify them as health care personnel … Willful misconduct, if established, would (1) negate liability as to the Board, but (2) subject the employee, Kroboth, to liability.

Penllyn Greene Associates, L.P. v. Clouser

890 A.2d 424 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2005

Whether Residents are Immune from Liability Under the Act for Tortious Interference with Contract Before any review concerning the relevance of the exceptions, Residents must allege facts, which if believed, would establish … While the Act clearly contemplates a hearing process where an evidentiary record is established and findings made therefrom, the Act does not provide the standard to be applied by the trial court in deciding the issue.

Huber v. Commonwealth

122 Pa. Commw. 82 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 1988

DOT argues that Appellants have not established the first element, namely, that DOT had a duty to conform to a particular standard of conduct with respect to Appellants. … Clearly, at common law, DOT has no duty to remove this ice and snow and Appellants have no cause of action. Vitelli .

Kosmack v. Jones

807 A.2d 927 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 2002

And you, sir, would not be qualified to disagree or challenge what he says, is that right? On that specific conclusion, are you qualified to say that he’s wrong. A. I don’t know at this point that I have the data. … Under the Sovereign Immunity Act, Commonwealth agencies are generally immune from tort liability. 1 Pa.C.S. § 2310; 42 Pa.C.S. § 8521(a).

K. Claypoole and M. Knepp as Co-Administrators of the Estate of G.M. Noel v. Altoona-Logan Twp. Mobile Medical Emergency Dept. Authority d/b/a AMED

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 2026

Cmwlth. 2015) (the General Assembly, via Section 5607 of the Municipal Authorities Act, 53 Pa.C.S. § 5607, clearly intended to create “a targeted form of accountability resting outside the scope of governmental immunity”; … Accordingly, the court in Malcolm concluded that the legislature “clearly meant to single out certain governmental employees and their governmental employers for standards of immunity different from those extant in the more

Yakowicz v. McDermott

120 Pa. Commw. 479 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 1988

“Absolute privilege” is clearly a defense made available to Commonwealth officials by 42 Pa. C. S. §8542. … Commonwealth, 481 Pa. 540 , 393 A.2d 293 (1978), held that official immunity is not absolute but qualified and its availability depends on the circumstances of each case.

O'BRIEN v. Township of Ralpho

166 Pa. Commw. 337 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 1994

as an adjudication and that the incident report in this case qualifies as such. … , immunities, duties, liabilities, or obligations.

Corliss v. Varner

934 A.2d 748 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 2007

Clearly, the case was prison conditions litigation. The final exhibit and the most interesting was Exhibit E which was Judge Caputo’s March 21, 2002, order dismissing the case Corliss v. Ben Varner, No. 3:CV-02-0282. … The cases considered by common pleas under the "three strikes rule” were all filed prior to the instant case and, therefore, properly qualified for consideration. 5 .

Craftex Mills, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Markowicz)

901 A.2d 1077 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2006

His immune system. Q. Can you explain? A. Some people can live in the stuff forever and never respond to it. Other people have an immune system that will react to it. … Mengel was clearly qualified to render an opinion as to the nature of Claimant’s illness.

Swift v. DEPT. OF TRANSP. OF COM.

937 A.2d 1162 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 2007

Burns was qualified to testify as an expert witness for the Department. Once qualified, an expert witness may testify on broad topics and specialties within their field. Kuisis v. … In its reply brief, Appellants admit that Haverford, Radnor and the School District enjoy qualified immunity from actions for damages, but argue that they have no immunity from actions for injunctive relief. [7] The remaining

Jones v. Chieffo

664 A.2d 1091 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 1995

employees and, in Mascaro, we held that the Legislature has clearly precluded the imposition of liability on itself or its local agencies for acts of third parties and that it has not seen fit to waive immunity for these … Instead of overturning Dickens, the Supreme Court reaffirms it and then goes to great lengths in dicta to attempt to qualify the language of Dickens.

Dauer v. Department of Education

874 A.2d 159 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 12, 2005

Where no right, privilege or immunity is in jeopardy, an agency’s action does not constitute an adjudication. … In this respect, she had no right, privilege or immunity in jeopardy. See Sergi v. Sch.

McGrail v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

145 Pa. Commw. 595 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 1992

For example, Frank Brozil, a qualified electrician and Assistant Director of Public Service for Lackawanna, testified: Q. Whose decision was it to go down into the panel room? A. … The record establishes that the only reason why ACE had not yet been paid was because ACE had not billed for its work. R.R. 256a — 257a, 262a, 265a.

S. Hoover v. S.A. Stine, PennDOT and the Borough of Waynesboro

153 A.3d 1145 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 2016

Not only has Hoover failed to establish that Waynesboro or PennDOT’s purported negligence caused her injuries, she has failed to establish that the alleged negligence fell within any exception to immunity. … In this case, the z-bricks and concrete headers clearly established the path for pedestrian egress across the highway, just as the painted crosswalk did in Glenn, thereby serving

Aberant v. Wilkes-Barre Area School District

89 Pa. Commw. 516 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 29, 1985

The petitioner School District claims that it is immune from liability under Section 8541 of the Judicial Code, that none of the eight exceptions in Section 8542(b) applies, and that one of the two qualifying conditions enumerated … Exceptions to governmental immunity (b) Acts which may impose liability.

Wellsboro Area School District v. Tioga County Board for Assessment & Revision of Taxes

651 A.2d 592 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 1994

This appeal raises the question of what, if anything, a School District was required to prove, so as to qualify for an exemption under this statute, once it established that the subject land is annexed to a schoolhouse. … taxation or assessments unless a statute clearly and unequivocally expresses the legislative will that such property shall not be immune: Robb v.

Stilp v. Commonwealth

927 A.2d 707 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 2007

A statute will only be declared unconstitutional if it clearly, palpably and plainly violates the Constitution. Ieropoli v. AC & S Corp., 577 Pa. 138 , 842 A.2d 919 (2004). III. Standing A. … Summary In summary, Stilp does not attempt to establish traditional standing. We hold that he fails to establish taxpayer standing because he cannot show that no other persons are better situated to bring the challenge.

Kniaz v. Benton Borough

164 Pa. Commw. 109 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 16, 1994

Immunity In order to prevail on its motion for summary judgment, the Fire Company sought to establish that no factual issue remains with respect to its qualification for governmental immunity under the PSTCA. … Thus, there is no dispute that the Fire Company has established the first prong of the Guinn requirements.