Case law

Lincoln v. Philadelphia Electric Co.

16 Pa. D. & C.4th 275 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 2, 1993

Plaintiff asserts that these threats were clearly motivated by animosity directed against the plaintiff individually and are not related to his position as a truck driver for PECO. … Plaintiff notes that defendants concede that the individual defendants are not immune if their conduct constitutes “intentional wrong.”

Gillen v. Trovato

14 Pa. D. & C.5th 380 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jun 17, 2010

“Independent Contractor ( ) “Employee (X)” The jury clearly believed Trovato’s version of the events and did not believe the plaintiff’s version. … to instruct the jury on workers’ compensation immunity.

Turner v. SEPTA

19 Pa. D. & C.4th 542 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Feb 10, 1993

After Hayes’ repeated fruitless attempts to establish radio contact with SEPTA control, McCullough disembarked at the Cottman Avenue and Roosevelt Boulevard stop to call the police from a pay phone. … We believe the legislature has clearly precluded the imposition of liability on itself or its local agencies for acts of third parties by its language of section 8541, supra, and that it has not seen fit to waive immunity

Reid v. City of Philadelphia

77 Pa. D. & C.4th 48 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Sep 8, 2005

When the Tort Claims Act was passed, it established immunity for municipal governments in some areas but held municipal governments responsible for negligent conduct in many areas where the government had responsibility at … sets up an ‘exception’ to an exception in governmental immunity, thereby obliterating a distinction between sidewalks owned by a local government and those owned by private citizens, such an analysis is clearly reasonable

Callari v. Rosenwasser

63 Pa. D. & C.4th 366 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Aug 7, 2003

Cervia qualifies as a medical expert in this case under the MCare Act. … Clearly, as evinced by his own testimony, Dr. Rosenwasser’s diagnosis and treatment of Mr. Callari’s infection was not within his specialty or competence.

Gosha v. City of Philadelphia

30 Pa. D. & C.3d 190 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Feb 17, 1982

After sovereign immunity was abolished in Pennsylvania, the City joined the Commonwealth. … The pictures indicate that the defect is clearly and immediately visible.

Parker v. Philadelphia Housing Authority

36 Pa. D. & C.4th 70 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Feb 10, 1997

The LBPPPA requires HUD to establish procedures to eliminate lead-based paint hazards with respect to existing public housing. … In essence, the court found *80 that both statutory schemes imposed specific and mandatory requirements on the states which were clearly intended to benefit the particular plaintiffs.

Jankowski v. Karakashian

2 Pa. D. & C.3d 220 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · May 21, 1976

In its brief accompanying its motion, hospital urges: “That the information to some extent may be based upon an expert’s opinion should not immunize it from discovery. … To this urging, our courts replied: “. . . the elements of a malpractice action had been long established in the law when rule 401 l(f ) was promulgated.

Heacock v. Sun Co.

38 Pa. D. & C.4th 1 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Sep 12, 1998

Clearly, and without question, the selected physician’s primary obligation is the proper medical care of his patient. … Zurbach must, of course, be demonstrated as qualified to provide medical opinions before he can testify.

Duross v. Aetna Life & Casualty Insurance

35 Pa. D. & C.3d 616 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jul 27, 1981

whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed (citation omitted). … In Gibson, the Supreme Court held that its abrogation of sovereign immunity in Mayle v.

Christie v. Kun

2 Pa. D. & C.2d 582 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Nov 10, 1954

As observed by a distinguished English judge, it would establish the weakness of judicial authority in a degrading responsibility. Taaffe v. Downes, 3 Moore, P. C. 41, n. … The phrase, “After the pleadings are closed”, clearly refers to the pleadings allowed under rule 1017.

Mazzucca v. Methodist Hospital

47 Pa. D. & C.3d 55 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Nov 26, 1986

(Purdon’s, 1986) this commonwealth has attempted to encourage peer evaluation through grants of confidentiality and immunity from legal liability to such committees. … Clearly, this situation differs substantially from the circumstances of Williams. The policy of the Pennsylvania courts is to permit broad discovery.

Keefer v. Lombardi

89 Pa. D. & C. 406 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jul 10, 1953

This enunciation of the third-party beneficiary rule clearly fits the case at hand. … In addition to the two witnesses who were qualified as experts, plaintiffs testified clearly concerning the condition of their properties before and after the blasting. In Procz et al. v.

Estate of Henderson v. City of Philadelphia

62 Pa. D. & C.4th 313 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Nov 9, 2001

Only if conduct which is extreme or clearly outrageous is established will a claim be proven. … Clearly, this case law only defines the state court’s obligation when considering federal claims. It does not bind the state court in its determination of state law claims.

Richard Allen Preparatory Charter School v. School District

38 Pa. D. & C.5th 90 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 21, 2014

The June 16, 2010 resolutions and the proposed Charter 4 do not qualify as adjudications under local agency law. … This court clearly recognizes and understands the severe conditions which exist in the Philadelphia School District at present.

Blair v. Travelers Insurance

8 Pa. D. & C.4th 157 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Oct 3, 1990

We also find that Travelers acted responsibly in giving plaintiff time in which he could establish that his car had been either transferred or junked. … Since plaintiff clearly does not meet the requirement set forth in section 1752(a)(3), he cannot qualify for any benefits under the plan.

Taylor v. L.A. Fitness International LLC

16 Pa. D. & C.5th 491 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Aug 30, 2010

The court stated, “The public has an interest in assuring that those claiming to be qualified to follow a doctor’s orders are in fact so qualified, and accept responsibility for their actions.” … Clearly, the establishment of a uniform standard of care is necessary.

In re Incorporation of Automatic Phonograph Owners Ass'n

45 Pa. D. & C. 551 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Nov 23, 1942

Clearly, the “improvement of the . . . economic conditions”, the “extension of markets,” and the promotion of “the general welfare of the industry and [to] stimulate public interest in the products of its members,” must be … We thus understand our primary function to be a determination of whether or not the corporation qualifies within the *555 class of nonprofit corporations.

Hull v. Shoyer

52 Pa. D. & C. 222 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Nov 3, 1944

Hull from the action of the Registration Commission for the City of Philadelphia in refusing to register his name as a voter qualified to vote in the fourteenth election division of the twenty-seventh ward of the City of … We do not think that his explanation is sufficient in view of the fact that we, too, feel that he has not established clearly his present intention to make Piv¡y e. phia his permanent home as defined in the sections which

Blumberg v. Watkins Motor Truck Inc.

1 Pa. D. & C.4th 664 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Dec 15, 1987

The instant case clearly is distinguishable from Billow . … This was definitely not the holding in Billow as a close reading of that case establishes.