Case law

Collier, J. v. National Penn Bank

2015 Pa. Super. 246 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 2015

The immunity claim was of paramount importance in the regulation and cost of electricity. … We found that since Wyeth retained some control over the name-brand drug after 2001, the nature and extent of which was disputed, this was not a case involving the application of clearly established law to a given set

Dean, M. v. Bowling Green-Brandywine

192 A.3d 1177 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2018

They argued Appellants had failed to present evidence capable of establishing willful misconduct or gross negligence. Brandywine and Dr. … Allen is clearly distinguishable. Allen directs that once a patient is being treated for psychiatric issues, any contemporaneous medical treatment must be considered part and parcel of the psychiatric treatment.

Babb v. Centre Community Hospital

2012 Pa. Super. 125 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 2012

Babb failed to establish the existence of a material issue of fact sufficient to preclude HCQIA immunity relative to Dr. Oliver and Dr. Chmielewski. The proffered evidence of Dr. Oliver and Dr. … Geisinger insisted on a release that did not contain the qualifying "in good faith and without malice” language.

In the Interest of M.J.S.

2006 Pa. Super. 154 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2006

in order to so qualify Madison. … Clearly, the reasoning of S.A.J. applies.

McGeary v. Leader Publishing Co.

52 Pa. Super. 35 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 1912

The privilege *47 here under consideration is not absolute, but qualified. … In short, it was not the province of the court to pass on the credibility of the witnesses and' to declare that the facts necessary to establish the defense were conclusively established.

Brown, J. v. Gaydos, G.

306 A.3d 883 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 2023

However, because we consider it to be a threshold matter, we first address whether the record clearly establishes Gaydos was Brown’s employer as defined under the WCA.8 As noted supra, Section 481(a) provides that … In order to establish immunity under the [WCA], the defendant is required to establish that [their] act or omission occurred while [they were] in the same employ as the plaintiff, that is, in the course

Commonwealth v. Steele

408 Pa. Super. 128 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 1991

They cannot be used to establish the guilt of this defendant in this case. That is clearly improper. And thirdly, this tape is intended to establish the identity of the defendant. N.T. November 21, 1988, at 75-76. … It is undisputed that both the tape and the newspaper article tended to establish appellant’s identity.

Yetterant v. Ward Trucking Corp.

401 Pa. Super. 467 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 1991

Where the privilege is abused by the employer’s publication of the defamatory material to unauthorized parties, the employer is no longer immune from liability. Agriss, supra, 334 Pa.Super. at 309 , 483 A.2d at 463 . … Thus, to survive a challenge of failure to state a cause of action, the complaint must establish the violation of a public policy.

Tucker v. Whitaker Travel, Ltd.

348 Pa. Super. 55 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 1985

lack of immunity under the FSIA. … Clause two, which deals with "an act performed in the United States,” is clearly inapplicable to thp instant case. .

Commonwealth v. BRADY

228 Pa. Super. 233 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 1974

The order to testify shall not be given except upon an order of court after a hearing in which the Attorney General has established a need for the grant of immunity, as hereinafter provided. . . . … It is not clear that "conspiracy" was used to qualify any of the enumerated crimes other than murder.

Sedlacek v. A.O. Smith Corp.

2010 Pa. Super. 25 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 2010

. ¶ 5 Additionally, both the WCA and ODA contain provisions purporting to establish the compensation schemes established in the WCA and ODA as “exclusive” remedies for an employee, as against his employer, for a work-related … In support of this position, ALCOA points out that the cases cited by appellants involve occupational diseases that are clearly not covered under the Acts. ¶ 13 ALCOA’s position is well taken.

Taras v. Wausau Ins. Companies

412 Pa. Super. 37 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 1992

PMA refused to pay any benefits despite its alleged knowledge that Kuney was clearly entitled to compensation. … Therefore, it might be established that any negligence on Eckels’ part, as Wausau’s agent, clearly could have contributed to causing Taras’ injuries.

Urbano v. Meneses

288 Pa. Super. 103 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 19, 1981

As for the individual members of the zoning board, we conclude that these individuals enjoy immunity, but not the immunity afforded high public officials but, rather, judicial immunity. … According to the Urbanos, on September 10, 1970, “certain Township records” were made available and it is alleged that these records “clearly established” fraud in the review of the Urbanos applications.

National Cash Register Co. v. Modern Transfer Co.

224 Pa. Super. 138 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 1973

The case law is well-established and without exception prorides that when no time is set for performance, a reasonable time must be allowed under the circumstances. … contract between the parties specifically precludes the recovery of such damages. 2 Appellant argues, however, that the fraudulent acts and inducements present herein should nullify a provision that makes the defrauding party immune

Buchholz v. Cam

288 Pa. Super. 33 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 1981

The lower court denied the City’s preliminary objections, which raised the defense of immunity from attachment. A motion for reconsideration was also denied and this appeal by the City followed. … Clearly within the rule of custodia legis, much had to be done before it could be identified and allocated to the Cam contracts.

Hershey Foods Corp. v. General Electric Service Co.

422 Pa. Super. 143 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 1992

We find that GESCO did unambiguously contract to indemnify Hershey even where Hershey was partly negligent, and that GESCO did clearly waive its immunity to suit by an employee under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. … The contract’s indemnification clause clearly constitutes a waiver of the statutory immunity otherwise provided by Section 303(b), and therefore, Hershey would be entitled to indemnification by GESCO if all other conditions

Burrell, B. v. Streamlight, Inc.

2019 Pa. Super. 335 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2019

Defendant therefore clearly had the right to direct and control the -8- J-A24037-19 work that Plaintiff was performing when he was injured. … Aerotek-Streamlight Personnel Agreement ¶1(b); Burrell Dep. at 32-38, 42-43.2 Because the undisputed facts established that Defendant was Plaintiff’s employer under the WCA and was therefore immune from tort liability

Gustafson, M. v. Springfield 282 A.3d 739

282 A.3d 739 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2022

of a qualified product . . . for damages . . . or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party”. 15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A). … - 16 - J-E02008-21 discussion clearly establishes that, although the plaintiffs in Ileto argued that PLCAA violated the substantive due process and equal protection principles

Pension Fund of the City of Pittsburgh Appeal

239 Pa. Super. 111 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 1976

Thus the court stated: “[Relator] paid part of his wages into the pension fund to qualify for the pension. … The Act of June 25, 1895, P.L. 275, §1, as amended Aug. 31, 1971, No. 98, P.L. 413, §1, 53 P.S. §101, established four classifications of cities based upon their population. In 1970, according to the U.S.

Heinrich v. Conemaugh Valley Memorial Hospital

436 Pa. Super. 465 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 21, 1994

George and Pat Stock under the protection of immunity. … Immunity is clearly provided to those who report under the Law: § 6318.