Case law

Montessori Regional Charter School v. Millcreek Township School District

55 A.3d 196 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 2012

The present case establishes a new rule of law regarding the CAB’s jurisdiction over charter amendment disputes. … This is an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed by any other court decisions.

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Holmes

835 A.2d 851 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 2003

. § 8371. 7 First, SEPTA enjoys sovereign immunity unless the claim falls into one of the exceptions to sovereign immunity established by the legislature, and liability for bad faith claims handling is not one of the enumerated … Next, the plaintiff must establish that the cause of action falls within one of the specifically enumerated exceptions to sovereign immunity set forth at 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b). Appellees cannot satisfy either burden.

A. Johnson v. J. Wetzel, Sec'y. PA. D.O.C.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2024

Additionally, the DOC claimed qualified immunity from liability on the basis that government officials are immune from lawsuits based on allegedly unconstitutional actions so long as those officials did not violate individual … rights which were clearly established at the time, and about which a reasonable government official would have known.

Metropolitan Edison Co. v. City of Reading

125 A.3d 499 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 2015

facilities of steam, sewer, water, gas or electric systems owned by the local agency and located within rights-of-way, except that the claimant to recover must establish … This Court explained that to qualify for immunity under Section 8542(b)(5) of the Act, “the allegedly dangerous condition must have derived or originated from, or had its source as the local agency’s realty.” Id.

Ligon v. Middletown Area School District

136 Pa. Commw. 566 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1990

The trial court sustained Ligon’s objection because the response called for hearsay not qualifying under the admission exception. … Sidds’ statements fail to qualify under this exception. Also, Mr.

Uram v. County of Allegheny

130 Pa. Commw. 148 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 1989

A police officer is not empowered to require the withdrawal of a warrant under the Act and indeed may not be qualified to make such a judgment. … Accordingly, the trial court’s holding that Appellant could not establish willful misconduct on Tosic’s part is affirmed.

L. Marshall & P. Fuller v. SEPTA ~ Appeal of: New Jersey Transit & New Jersey Transit Corp.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 2023

Plaintiffs summarily conclude that because a NJ Transit bus accident “is an exception to state sovereign immunity,” “there is clearly no” immunity here. Id. at - . … Id.25 Although the Scanlon Court did not address the Tort Act, New York public entity may negate liability by establishing immunity.

Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of O'Hara

676 A.2d 1255 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 21, 1996

Whether they are immune from suit turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the suit, and the official action must be assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the- action was taken … established that these individuals violated a “clearly established” right, as required to overcome the claim of qualified immunity and grant punitive damages.

Bryson v. SOLOMON

97 Pa. Commw. 530 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 30, 1986

It clearly states that the Department of Streets shall establish and determine the type and location of traffic controls. … —Every school district transporting school children by school bus shall establish and maintain school bus loading zones at or near all schools to or from which school children are transported and shall establish school bus

Sylvan Heights Realty Partners, L.L.C. v. LaGrotta

940 A.2d 585 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 2, 2008

Such is clearly not the case here. … Such a clearly definable, controlling issue is not present here.

Balletta v. Spadoni

47 A.3d 183 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 2012

Courts allow defendants to raise immunity by preliminary objection where the defense is clearly applicable and where the plaintiff does not object. Id. Both conditions exist here. … To that end, words which standing alone may reasonably be understood as defamatory may be so explained or qualified by their context as to make such an interpretation unreasonable.

T. Robinson v. Philadelphia Int'l. Airport ~ Appeal of: City of Philadelphia

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2025

As such, requiring a government entity “to engage in litigation from which [it] is immune and allowing such litigation to proceed clearly undermines the purpose of immunity.” Hommrich, 329 A.3d at 784. … It does not establish that Judge Kennedy’s grant of summary judgment to the City was clearly erroneous on the issue of the nature of the area where Robinson fell, which might have subjected the City to liability at trial.

Gibellino v. Manchester Township

109 A.3d 336 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 2015

The trial court first determined that the Township is immune because Gibellino’s allegations in Count I clearly sound in tort as they are based on the contractor’s negligence in failing to properly install the backwater valves … To fall within the exception to immunity, Section 8542(b)(5) 13 provides that Gibellino was required to allege facts that established: 1. the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury

LeGRANDE v. Department of Corrections

920 A.2d 943 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2007

Before this Court, LeGrande argues that the Manual clearly constitutes an essential component of DOC’s decision making regarding the implementation of sentencing. … LeGrande also notes that DOC merely asserted the protections without properly establishing them.

Lamolinara v. BARGER

30 Pa. Commw. 307 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 25, 1977

First, we do not read the term “fixing” to require the affirmative establishment or creation of rights, privileges, immunities, duties or obligations. … His removal from duty for whatever reason, valid or not, whether by dismissal or suspension, clearly affected that property right.

Knox v. SEPTA

81 A.3d 1016 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 2013

stop in order to pick up and drop off fare-paying passengers is a legal fiction and qualifies as “absurd” under statutory construction. … As explained by the Supreme Court in Goldman : FELA establishes a compensation structure for railroad workplace injuries which preempts state tort remedies and workers’ compensation statutes. Norfolk Southern Railway v.

Pettit v. Namie

931 A.2d 790 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2007

The District Court granted the prosecutors’ motions for summary judgment and dismissed the suit on the grounds the prosecutors were protected by qualified immunity. … immunity.

County of Allegheny v. Wilcox

76 Pa. Commw. 584 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 29, 1983

This statement, however, was conditioned upon the employer’s having established the absence of discrimination. … PHRA by virtue of sovereign immunity, absolute state immunity, judicial immunity or qualified state immunity.

Schnupp v. Port Authority of Allegheny County

710 A.2d 1235 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 2, 1998

establishes that Appellees violated Schnupp’s federal and state civil rights. … The record in Schnupp’s case clearly indicates that at the least, genuine issues of material fact remain pending as to whether Appellees, while acting under the color of state law, committed acts which deprived Schnupp of

D. Sobat and E. Sobat v. The Borough of Midland ~ Appeal of: E. Sobat

141 A.3d 618 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2016

to governmental immunity. … To qualify for an exception, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) the damages would be recoverable under common law or a statute against a person unprotected by immunity; and (2) the negligent act of the local agency or its