Case law

Simon v. Commonwealth

659 A.2d 631 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 1995

Thereafter, the Commission filed an answer and new matter to the complaint raising the following affirmative defenses in its new matter: sovereign immunity, legislative immunity, specific statutory immunity, failure to give … This is clearly an unconscionable abrogation of a state protected constitutional right without procedural due process.

Laich v. Bracey

776 A.2d 1022 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 4, 2001

Moreover, the standard for summary judgment is well established. … Clearly, the trial court improperly granted Appellees’ motion for summary judgment without addressing Appellant’s other alleged damages.

Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 5 v. City of Philadelphia

139 Pa. Commw. 256 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 1991

The definition of provisional appointment clearly contains the qualifying language that the selectee “has not been qualified for City employment through the established examination and certification procedures.” … It allows only individuals who have “not been qualified for City employment through the established examination and certification procedure,” that is, not qualified through the regular civil service procedures as those who

City of Pittsburgh v. Commonwealth

20 Pa. Commw. 226 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 1975

Opinion by Judge Rogers, The plaintiffs and the intervening plaintiff sought an order enjoining the defendants from establishing a prison pre-release center at 535 South Aiken Avenue, *228 Pittsburgh. … L. 351 clearly envisions the temporary use of premises in the community rather than institutions created and owned by the State.

R.M. v. Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency

740 A.2d 302 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 4, 1999

A touchstone of a regulation is that it establishes a binding norm. … of the Policy Statement establishes a binding norm.

PA PUC v. Delaware Valley Regional Economic Dev. Fund

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 2021

The Public Utility Code clearly classifies the PUC as an “independent administrative commission.” 66 Pa.C.S. §301(a). … That is, the PUC clearly seeks to use the disputed funds for the public benefit.

IUP v. Jefferson County Bd. of Assess. Appeals v. Punxsutawney Area SD & Boro of Punxsutawney

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 2020

With the presumption of tax immunity established, the burden shifted to the local taxing entity to demonstrate express legislative authorization to levy a property tax on the real estate in question. … The Supreme Court stated “clearly the leasing of real estate, solely to raise revenue, is not an activity connected to SEPTA’s purpose.” Id. at 717.

R. James v. Community College of Allegheny County

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2021

CCAC argues that the doctrine of qualified 19 immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Officer argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity from Appellant’s constitutional claims because his conduct did not violate “clearly 30 established statutory or constitutional

Township of Indiana v. Acquisitions & Mergers, Inc.

770 A.2d 364 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 2001

We are not persuaded *373 that the moving party’s status as a governmental entity should exempt it from the established rules of civil and appellate procedure. … . § 8542, which established a set of governmental immunity exceptions similar to the exceptions granted under the sovereign immunity statute. 9 .

Asbury v. PAT OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY

863 A.2d 84 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 2004

Neuschwander is a highly respected medical doctor, but in this case he does not qualify as an accident reconstruction expert, which is apparently what Asbury attempted to portray him as in his deposition. … As an agency of the Commonwealth, PAT is immune from suit for not promulgating such a policy since it does not fall within one of the exceptions in 42 Pa.C.S. 8521-8522. Marshall v.

Snelling v. Department of Transportation

27 Pa. Commw. 276 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 1976

Initially, we note that in ruling upon preliminary objections, we must accept as true all well and clearly pleaded facts, Metropolitan Hospital v. Dept. of Public Welfare, 21 Pa. … Sovereign Immunity Respondents contend that sovereign immunity bars Petitioners’ Amended Petition for Review insofar as it seeks to compel the Secretary to perform an affirmative act, i.e., revoke highway occupancy permits

Commonwealth ex rel. Saunders v. Creamer

11 Pa. Commw. 160 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 28, 1973

which are well and clearly pleaded, even though not admitting the pleader’s conclusions or averments of law. … Section 1985 gives a cause of action to any person who lias been the victim of a conspiracy by two or more persons to deprive him of equal protection or privileges and immunities under the law.

Lincoln Party ex rel. Robinson v. General Assembly

682 A.2d 1326 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 1996

In the instant case, the Lincoln Party’s petition for review is devoid of any averment which would establish that it has standing. … The precise issue this Court must address then is: whether the question presented on the ballot “fairly, accurately and clearly apprises the voter of the question or issue to be voted on?” Stander v.

Pennsylvania Division, Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective Ass'n v. Mountainview Thoroughbred Racing Ass'n

855 A.2d 957 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 11, 2004

Mountainview and the Turf Club respond that it is impossible for Breeding Fund prizes and purses to be paid timely to qualifying breeders and owners directly from the Breeding Fund. … In view of this conclusion, the Court need not address the claims that the action is barred by sovereign immunity.

Phillips Ex Rel. Phillips v. Washington County Transportation Authority

986 A.2d 925 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 2009

Summary judgment is only appropriate when, after examining the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party clearly establishes that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. 6 . … As such, SPAAA enjoys governmental immunity as well.

Bird v. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare

731 A.2d 660 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 1999

Bird] and did so to qualify [Mrs. Bird] for MA benefits. … Such transactions, however, may not contravene other regulations that clearly articulate the intent of the MCCA.

Lowery v. Port Authority of Allegheny County

914 A.2d 953 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 2006

The complaints here clearly aver that the bus was in motion when a collision occurred with the automobile driven by Goodman. Complaint of Tarr, Paragraphs 7, 10, 11; Complaint of Lowery, Paragraphs 5, 6. … The Court shall remand the matter for further proceedings, which will require establishing the number of claims for uninsured motorist coverage filed arising out of that one accident.

Hess v. Warwick Township Zoning Hearing Board

977 A.2d 1216 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2009

The solicitor’s letter further explained that the Appellants failed to prove that keeping twenty-one dogs is customarily incidental to their residential use and, thus, failed to establish that sheltering the dogs qualified … that their use qualifies as a permitted accessory use.

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

654 A.2d 3 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 1994

There is some concern that sovereign immunity bars an award of attorneys fees. In our prior decision Department of Public Assistance v. … That section provides that attorney’s fees shall be awarded to a claimant, where a case is resolved in the claimant’s favor, unless a reasonable basis for the contest is established by the employer.

Corrigan v. Central Tax Bureau of Pa., Inc.

828 A.2d 502 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2003

He .further contends that the Supervisors are not protected from Corrigan’s action on grounds of official immunity. … 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 mov-ant clearly establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of