Case law

Glencannon Homes Ass'n v. North Strabane Township

116 A.3d 706 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 2015

We rejected the estate’s allegations, noting that section 8553(b) clearly sets forth a limitation on damages of $500,000.00 in the aggregate. … Appellant has not met her burden of establishing that the Act’s damages cap clearly, palpably and plainly violates Article I, Section 6. Id. at 1133 .

J.F. Geier, of the Estate of M.M. Geier v. Board of Public Education of the SD of Pittsburgh v. American Art Clay Company, Inc., a/k/a Amaco, Inc.

153 A.3d 1189 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 2017

Therefore, Plaintiffs claim they established that their claim would be cognizable under common law. C. … Decedent again testified the word “asbestos” clearly appeared on the bags containing the powder used to make the mixture. Id. at 273-74; R.R. at 161a-62a.

Senex Explosives, Inc. v. Commonwealth

67 A.3d 1268 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 2013

Rather, the burden resides with the Commonwealth to establish its authority to impose tax upon a vehicle when that vehicle is clearly excluded from the Act from which it derives taxing authority. … We underscore our reasoning from our prior opinion here: the placement of IFTA decals upon a vehicle does not eliminate the statutory exclusion for that vehicle and establish the application of IFTA to that vehicle, along

Sellers v. Township of Abington

67 A.3d 863 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2013

To invoke one of the waivers of immunity, a plaintiff must first establish: (1) The damages would be recoverable under common law or a statute creating a cause of action if the injury were caused by a person not having available … Once a plaintiff establishes a cause of action under common law, the plaintiff then must show that the local government can be held liable for damages under one of the exceptions to immunity enumerated in Section 8542 of

Samuel J. Lansberry, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

82 Pa. Commw. 21 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 24, 1984

the Commission proposed to modify its policy concerning the standards to be used to adjudicate applications by motor common carriers for operating authority. 2 Under then-existing standards, an applicant was required to establish … S. §5105, in contending that the Commission’s order is appealable regardless of whether it qualifies as an adjudication.

A.J. Bates v. Delaware County Prison Employees' Independent Union, and Community Education Centers, Inc. v. Community Education Centers, Inc. v. The Security, Police, and Fire Professionals of America, Local 500

150 A.3d 121 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 2016

This court’s standard of review permits reversal of a trial court’s order granting summary judgment only where it is established that the trial court committed an error of law or abused its discretion. … factual evidence which warranted a relitigation of the immunity question.” 611 A.2d at 348-49.

Goralski Et Vir v. Pl Pizzimenti

115 Pa. Commw. 210 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 5, 1988

Applying the Braig test to the present case, Pizzimentis letter clearly lays out the facts’ that he thinks constitute misconduct. … The Act also contained provisions dealing with the subject of official immunity.

Joint Bargaining Committee of Pennsylvania Social Services Union v. Commonwealth

109 Pa. Commw. 11 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 1987

The pertinent provision of this agreement reads as follows: It is the intent of the parties that an unfunded reserve account shall be established by the Employer. … simply seek to restrain state officials from performing affirmative acts are not within the rule of immunity.

L.J.S. v. State Ethics Commission

744 A.2d 798 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2000

A Judicial Officer is not Immune from Criminal Prosecution Additionally, the Commission contends that throttling its investigation effectively immunizes Petitioner from criminal charges. We disagree. … Summary judgment may be granted only in those cases where the record clearly shows that there exists no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Marks v.

Keller v. Commonwealth

65 Pa. Commw. 520 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 1982

Moreover, while the qualifying language “ [r]ates established by the department” gives the Department power to determine the reasonable amount to be paid for the services, it does not permit the Department to deny payment … Bach of the facilities involved in the cases before us was qualified.

H. Reilly v. Upper Moreland PD and L. Cruz

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 2025

On July 24, 2023, Appellants filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that Officer Cruz was entitled to qualified immunity, that Reilly failed to establish that Officer Cruz lacked probable cause to arrest him, and that … qualified immunity from Reilly’s suit.

Ream v. Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare

93 Pa. Commw. 190 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 26, 1985

Code §255.2 as meaning when eligibility for benefits is established. … Code §255.2 is clearly erroneous and in conflict with the intent and purpose of the Public. Welfare Code. “Eligible” as used in 55 Pa.

United States Tobacco Co. v. Commonwealth

22 Pa. Commw. 211 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 1975

Traigle, supra, is also clearly distinguishable. … It is my belief that the majority’s holding almost obliterates the immunity conferred by the Commerce Clause and that it fails to give effect to the will of Congress expressed by P.L. 86-276.

SWB YANKEES LLC v. Gretchen Wintermantel

999 A.2d 672 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2010

However, under the old RTKL, the organization had to perform an “essential governmental function” to qualify as an agency. 65 P.S. § 66.1. 3 The fact that the General Assembly has removed the qualifier “essential” indicates … This Court, however, is not summarily assuming that the information requested constitutes records under the RTKL, but rather, the facts as presented establish that the information requested constitutes records under the RTKL

Londonderry Township v. Geyer

113 Pa. Commw. 176 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 1988

Appellants contend these conclusions would establish a vested right in the permit 16 which would entitle them to the relief they claim. … This is the proper procedure for raising the defense of immunity. Pa. R.C.P. No. 1030.

Alternate Energy Store, Inc v. Commonwealth

107 Pa. Commw. 66 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 1987

the permit) to the petitioner for a site in Lower Provi *68 dence Township (Township), Montgomery County: The permit carried a standard condition requiring compliance with local zoning ordinances 2 and a special condition establishing … Clearly, DER, through its counsel, was merely advising the petitioner of the status of the permit. We must conclude, therefore, that the Board did not err in holding the letter to be unappealable.

Goldsborough v. Commonwealth

133 Pa. Commw. 487 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 1990

Section 27 of Article I of the Pennsylvania Constitution establishes for the citizens of the Commonwealth the following environmental rights: § 27. … Section 8521 of the Judicial Code refers to Sovereign Immunity, which applies only to Commonwealth agencies. Section 8541 refers to Governmental Immunity and applies only to local agencies. 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8521, 8541. .

Connaught Laboratories, Inc. v. Lewis

124 Pa. Commw. 568 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 1989

Edwards may successfully assert immunity under the Tort Claims Act. … Chapter 85 of JARA replaced the immunity provisions of the Tort Claims Act. Governmental Immunity provisions now appear at 42 Pa. C. S. §§8541-8550.

Gough v. Borough of Norristown

66 Pa. Commw. 401 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 3, 1982

The Borough’s demurrer is based on the failure of Gough to allege that his expectation of continued employment was established, guaranteed or otherwise governed by contract or statute, that therefore his dismissal was not … Clearly no cause has been stated for an order requiring the borough to conduct a hearing, much less the reinstatement prayed for in the complaint.

In Re Septa Mvfrl Interest Litigation

996 A.2d 1099 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 28, 2010

At best, the obligation follows indirectly from the Section 1787 filing made with the Department of Transportation to qualify as a self-insurer. … The Assigned Claims Plan is a statutory facility established in Subchapter E of the MVFRL, 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 1751-1757.