Case law

Jones v. Peterman

743 A.2d 537 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 1999

These defendants have no statewide policymaking functions, so do not qualify as officers of the Commonwealth for purposes of the Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction. … Jones seeks monetary damages for an alleged civil conspiracy to deprive him of his rights, which places his cause of action clearly within the definition of “action in trespass.”

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.

Snyder v. North Allegheny School District

722 A.2d 239 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 24, 1998

Tort Immunity Act. … In effect, the School District is arguing that Barbara Yankasky was not qualified as an expert witness to render such a diagnosis.

Gale v. City of Philadelphia

86 A.3d 318 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 2014

First, a plaintiff must establish that “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 a defense,” of governmental immunity … Under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the affirmative defense of governmental immunity should be raised by New Matter; however, where the defense of immunity is clearly applicable on the face of the complaint and

Carpenter v. Pleasant

759 A.2d 411 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2000

Trial Court’s denial of the Motion was appealed. 3 The subject matter of this appeal is limited to the City of Chester’s liability under the traffic light exception to governmental immunity under the Political Subdivision … Since Conrad clearly has specialized skill, training, knowledge and experience in the area of Conflict Monitors and since such testimony would help educate the jury as to whether or not the implementation of such a device

K.G. Sheehan Vello v. D. DeMarco

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 2025

Because we conclude the facts averred do not establish with certainty that immunity applies, we affirm Common Pleas’ decision. … Without further factual development establishing the nature and purpose of the Board’s meeting, we agree with Common Pleas that DeMarco is not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity.

Hill v. Port Authority Transit System

125 Pa. Commw. 69 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 1989

Further, it was intended to re-establish limited governmental immunity abrogated by Ayala v. … This Court finds that the Authority consistently maintained that it was not the primary obligor even subsequent to disclosure of information which clearly established Appellant’s uninsured status and subsequent to this Court

Precision Marketing, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Republican Caucus of the Senate of PA/AKA the Senate of PA Republican Caucus

78 A.3d 667 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 5, 2013

The doctrine of sovereign immunity, which provides that a state may not be sued without its consent, 7 clearly ap *671 plies to the state itself. … The party asserting immunity has the burden of establishing such immunity. State Public School Bldg. Authority v. Goodea Const. Co., 24 Pa.

John Doe 1 v. Franklin County

139 A.3d 296 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 20, 2016

High Public Official Immunity to Statutory Claims Common pleas held that Sheriff Anthony is qualified for high public official immunity and is, therefore, insulated from all liability for the complained of acts in … First, a party may raise the affirmative defense of immunity as a preliminary objection where it is clearly applicable on the face of the complaint; that is, that a cause of action is made against a governmental

Burcik v. Caplen

805 A.2d 21 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2002

Burcik argues that, having been created by State statute, the Board qualifies for sovereign immunity as an independent Commonwealth agency. … Only a subset of State actors for Fourteenth Amendment purposes qualify for immunity as local or State agencies. Compare Krynicky v.

J.L. Nagle. v. TrueBlue, Inc., Labor Ready, Inc. and Labor Ready Northeast, Inc. and Rye Twp.

148 A.3d 946 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 2016

Ready and the Township stating, in pertinent part: At the [o]ral [a]rgument on the [Motions], counsel for [Nagle] made it clear to the [trial c]ourt that he believed [the] Township qualified … Because the established law holds that the entity with the right to control Bell’s work and his manner of performing it is the leading indicator of his employer, the Township was clearly Bell’s borrowing employer at the time

D. Scrip v. Debbie O'Dell Seneca, in her individual capacity as President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County

191 A.3d 917 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2018

In crafting the Code of Conduct, Scrip argued, the Supreme Court clearly expressed its intent to provide a 7 remedy to judicial employees under the Whistleblower Law. … to such claims; and (b) the Code of Conduct, which requires Judicial employees to report wrongdoing, qualifies as a public policy of the Commonwealth.

Browne v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

843 A.2d 429 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 2004

Browne states therein that she presented sufficient *435 evidence to overcome the township’s governmental immunity claim, and that its actions fell within the real estate and utility service exceptions to the grant of immunity … The investigating officer is not qualified to interpret the report supplied by Cpl. Mauger.”

Lal v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

755 A.2d 48 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 19, 2000

The trial court denied the motion, again on the grounds that Lai failed to establish an exception to sovereign immunity. The instant appeal to this Court followed. … Further, in his reply brief, Lai asserts that the trial court established that the action complained of by Lai was a continuing trespass.

M. Edie v. George Junior Republic in PA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2026

Following discovery, on November 22, 2024, Appellee filed the Motion, claiming that it qualified for immunity under the Act as a statutory employer. See R.R. at 25-128. … Where, as here, Appellee’s supervisor and other employees were in the Kitchen simultaneously with Metz’s staff every day, they clearly occupied the Kitchen.

Phillips v. City of Philadelphia

148 Pa. Commw. 175 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 1992

Once the existence of a cause of action in negligence has been established, Appellee has the burden of showing that the requirements of one of the exceptions to governmental immunity have been met. … Subsection 8542(b)(6)(ii) clearly states that the exception applies only if “all of the ... conditions are met.” (Emphasis added.)

Stevens v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

89 Pa. Commw. 309 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 17, 1985

The requirements of the statute are clearly written and create a very narrow exception to the defense of sovereign immunity for damages caused by potholes. … The statute clearly requires the “claimant to recover must establish” that the applicable Commonwealth agency, here PennDOT, had actual written notice of the dangerous condition with sufficient time in which to effect repairs

Harristown Development Corp. v. Commonwealth

135 Pa. Commw. 177 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 14, 1990

This is clearly within the legislative sphere. … Similarly, the HDC does not qualify as an agency under the Right-to-Know Law.

Wilt v. Commonwealth

46 Pa. Commw. 559 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 1979

Lopus, although he clearly under the old law would have had absolute immunity, no longer enjoys this status. We are unable on the record now before us to say whether any public policy would be promoted by holding Mr. … Lopus to be immune.

Dunkle v. Middleburg Municipal Authority

842 A.2d 477 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 2004

To qualify for an exception under the Tort Claims Act, a plaintiff is required to prove that (1) the damages would be recoverable under common law or statute against a person unprotected by governmental immunity, and (2) … Summary judgment is properly granted where there is no genuine issue of material *481 fact as to a necessary element of a cause of action and the moving party has clearly established entitlement to judgment as a matter of