Case law

Weiser v. H.H. Robertson Co.

20 Pa. D. & C.3d 755 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Sep 30, 1981

It is clearly established in Pennsylvania that both the immediate (actual) employer and general contractor (statutory employer) are immunized from common-law liability. … The question whether a subcontractor also qualifies for a statutory employer defense has not yet been clearly determined. *757 In Rieffer v. Walsh Construction Co., 140 F. Supp.

Ginsburg v. Kovrak

11 Pa. D. & C.2d 615 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jan 14, 1957

Admittedly there is none in the matter of qualifying Federal attorneys by any exclusively Federal system of education or supervision. … Merely because the Federal courtrooms are open does not mean that the Federal courts have approved anyone as a qualified lawyer. The most it means is that a man may practice there if he is qualified by local law.

Greene v. Street

24 Pa. D. & C.5th 546 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Aug 5, 2011

As Chairman of the PHA, Street is clearly protected by high public official immunity. … Accordingly, because Street both qualifies as a high official and was acting within the scope of his duties, he qualifies for high public official immunity.

Mertz v. Temple University Hospital

25 Pa. D. & C.4th 541 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jun 28, 1995

Litostansky clearly led to the decision to discharge Mr. Litostansky. Thus, the chain of causation was established, and there was no conflicting evidence on gross negligence. … Pinsker’s unfamiliarity with the Pennsylvania statute did not render him un *563 qualified to be an expert in psychiatry. The court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying Dr.

Frankel v. Arch Street Corp.

35 Pa. D. & C.2d 453 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Oct 20, 1964

and unequivocally spell out the intent to grant such immunity and relief from liability. … Since we find no public policy considerations, we must look to the lease and determine whether the *457 terms of the contract “clearly and unequivocally spell out the intent to grant such immunity from liability.”

Croft v. Livingston

82 Pa. D. & C. 277 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · May 9, 1952

Defendant qualified for participation in the pension plan on June 1,1938. First payment was made to him *278 on July 1, 1950. Apparently at this time he was still a resident of Pennsylvania. … In another analogous situation the public policy of this commonwealth has been clearly stated. The Act of May 8, 1874, P.

Chemical Natural Resources, Inc. v. Republic of Venezuela

38 Pa. D. & C.2d 47 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · May 13, 1965

courts in both contract and tort and with its long established policy of not claiming immunity in foreign jurisdictions for its merchant vessels. … Hence, the defense of sovereign immunity, if not clearly untenable, is at least prematurely asserted.

Howard v. SEPTA

22 Pa. D. & C.5th 449 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Feb 22, 2011

The Commonwealth Court has previously held that for a Commonwealth agency’s negligence to qualify under the vehicle liability exception, the negligence must be within the operation of the vehicle. … Based on the foregoing, this court determined that summary judgment in the defendant’s favor was appropriate as a matter of law, because the plaintiff was unable to establish that any of the exceptions to sovereign immunity

Industrial Valley Bank & Trust Co. v. Rosenfield

37 Pa. D. & C.3d 621 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Dec 12, 1985

Some of the courts interpreted the statutes in the traditional sense that only an “employer” could establish a pension plan. … Clearly enunciated in section (b)(l)(viii), protection from judgment creditors is given to self-employed persons.

DeWalt v. Bartley

146 Pa. 529 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · May 2, 1892

as members of one body and that body the state, the act treats of the voters as they are divided into political parties by their voluntary choice; and it then confers upon the voters of some political parties favors and immunities … As we view the act there is nothing in it which is so clearly a violation of the constitution as to justify this court in striking it down. It would be out of place at this time to discuss its wisdom.

DiGrazio v. City of Philadelphia

21 Pa. D. & C.3d 209 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jul 7, 1981

The city cannot rely on Monell as establishing an absolute bar to suits under section 1983 based on the allegedly unconstitutional acts of its employes. Owens v. … Justice Brennan, writing for the majority, pointed out that the language of section 1983 is “absolute and un *213 qualified; no mention is made of privileges, immunities or defenses that may be asserted.”

Holdeen Trust

58 Pa. D. & C.2d 602 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Nov 20, 1972

However, the New York cases indicate clearly that settlor’s choice was not of *622 fensive to New York public policy: Shannon v. Irving Trust Co., 275 N. Y. 95 , 9 N. … Trust "47-10” was established by settlor on April 22, 1947, and is captioned no. 2248 of 1971. Its basic provisions are identical with the instant trust. Trust "54-120” was established by settlor and his wife, Stella H.

Warner v. Lawrence

69 Pa. D. & C.4th 511 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Dec 9, 2004

DISCUSSION The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held: “A statute will be found unconstitutional only if ‘it clearly, palpably and plainly’ violates constitutional rights____Under well-settled principles of law, there is a strong … “The report of the Joint State Government Commission on sovereign immunity, which formed the basis for the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, explains that partial immunity will assure “ ‘that the Commonwealth will not

Walker v. Pennsylvania Financial Responsibility Assigned Claims Plan

43 Pa. D. & C.4th 1 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Sep 29, 1999

There is no assertion of sovereign immunity in this case. … In terms of the first criterion, there clearly was a causal connection between the injury and the use of the insured vehicle.

Feingold v. Hill

44 Pa. D. & C.3d 610 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · May 1, 1986

In addition, plaintiff failed to plead any facts which would establish that defendants acted with malice. … Plaintiff has clearly failed to state a cause of action against defendants for intentional interference with business relationships.

Bochetto & Lentz P.C. v. Whitman Council Inc.

14 Pa. D. & C.5th 449 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Mar 18, 2010

The city approved qualified expenses for reimbursement and forwarded block grant funds to Whitman Council to reimburse such expenses. … Now, it is too late. 3 Even if the city timely raised the issue of immunity of federal funds, the evidence does not establish that the $7,931.39 transferred from TD Bank to plaintiff was comprised of federal funds.

Canizares v. City of Philadelphia

20 Pa. D. & C.4th 397 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jul 16, 1993

The Act sets forth exceptions to governmental immunity in 42 Pa.C.S. §8542. … Nor is the plank a fixture which would qualify it as real property. The plank was temporary, movable and used only to walk from trough to trough.

McCaffery v. Creamer

25 Pa. D. & C.5th 353 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 4, 2012

established by the United States Supreme Court in Butz v. … For immunity to apply it must be established that the actions complained of were performed within the agency’s quasi-judicial function. 2 Immunity afforded to *360 official acts is inapplicable to unofficial conduct or ultra

Civera v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

9 Pa. D. & C.3d 39 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jun 22, 1977

The board held a public hearing on July 21, 1976, at which time testimony to the following effect was presented: (1) that Woodmere is a nonprofit qualified corporation enjoying tax immunity and tax exemptions under state … In determining whether proof of unnecessary hardship was established, the board did conclude that it was adequately demonstrated and that the proposed use would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.

Drab v. City of Philadelphia

47 Pa. D. & C.2d 149 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jul 18, 1969

It is now settled that where the status of the employe at the time of the accident qualified him to receive workmen’s compensation benefits, such as where the employe admits that he was in the course of his employment when … Kligerman, 365 Pa. 168 (1950); the Supreme Court stated: “A reading of the statute and its many amendments makes it manifest that the legislation relating to *155 workmen’s compensation was designed and intended to establish