Case law

Tayar v. Camelback Ski Corp., Inc.

2008 Pa. Super. 204 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 2008

We will reverse the resulting order only where it is established that the court committed an error of law or clearly abused its discretion. Estate of Higgins ex rel. Higgins v. Washington Mut. Fire Ins. … the intent of the parties; (3) the language of the contract must be construed, in cases of ambiguity, against the party seeking immunity from liability; and (4) the burden of establishing immunity is upon the party invoking

Grimes v. Wetzler

2000 Pa. Super. 90 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2000

The court held that the Appellees were, at most, negligent and that as government officials, they were protected by qualified immunity. … Did the trial court properly hold that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, and thus, not liable for damages? We, however, find these two issues mere restatements of the issues raised by Appellant.

Dobransky, E. v. EQT Production Company

2020 Pa. Super. 189 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 11, 2020

Our scope of review of a trial court’s order granting or denying summary judgment is plenary, and our standard of review is clear: the trial court’s order will be reversed only where it is established that … Atlas filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that it qualified -4- J-A05012-20 as a statutory employer under Section 302(a) of the Act and, therefore, was immune from tort

Commonwealth v. Papsone

44 Pa. Super. 128 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 10, 1910

He cannot exercise any political rights whatever, nor be compelled to fill any elective or appointive office; he is not qualified to serve as a juror; or to receive a license to sell liquor, hawk or peddle. … hire and occupy houses and warehouses, to employ agents of their choice and generally to do anything incident to or necessary for trade upon the same terms as natives of the country, submitting themselves to the laws then established

Berreski v. Philadelphia Electric Co.

67 Pa. Super. 215 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 1917

had not arrived at the age when he was presumed to have sufficient capacity and understanding to be sensible of danger and to avoid it and he had passed beyond the age when it could be declared by the court that he was immune … The Act of June 12,1913, establishing the court below, in its twelfth *220 section regulates the manner of pleading.

In Re Estate of Sauers

2009 Pa. Super. 75 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 2009

We have observed repeatedly that this broadly worded provision is clearly expansive. … Qualified domestic relations orders [QDROs] are expressly provided for by ERISA.

Greer v. Metropolitan Hospital

235 Pa. Super. 266 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1975

its perimeters not only those cases clearly (and in one instance specifically) overruled by Ayala , hut also cases falling within the Brown concept of “sovereign immunity.” … Justice Pomeroy cast the deciding vote in Brown and Ayala , and clearly enunciated his views on the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Brown at 575, 305 A.2d at 873.

Foster v. UPMC South Side Hospital

2010 Pa. Super. 143 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 2010

In order to qualify for this immunity, a professional review action must be taken- *661 (1) in the reasonable belief that the action was in the furtherance of quality health care, (2) after a reasonable effort to obtain the … Hence, we affirm the trial court’s application of the immunity provided by the Act.

Commonwealth v. Heller

80 Pa. Super. 366 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 1923

It defined “veterinary medicine” to include veterinary surgery and *369 veterinary dentistry or any branch, thereof, and established a full and complete system of regulation of its practice. … The offense is a continuing one and does not gain the offender perpetual immunity and establish his right to violate the law after two years’ unlawful practice.

Chilutti, S. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

300 A.3d 430 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 2023

There must be evidence sufficient to establish the parties’ consent to arbitration. … Because sovereign immunity protects government entities from a lawsuit itself, the Court concluded that a sovereign immunity defense is irreparably lost if appellate review of an adverse decision on sovereign immunity

English v. Lehigh County Authority

286 Pa. Super. 312 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 1981

In the court’s opinion, English’s administrator and Wiesenberger were “clearly ... on notice that [the] . .. Authority was claiming a general immunity as an employer under the Act .. . . ” Slip op. at 17. … That was clearly the province of the Authority.

Spidle v. Livingston Const. Co., Inc.

311 Pa. Super. 201 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 1983

We hold that the amendment to Section 303 clearly grants the employer immunity from suit and bars its joinder as an additional defendant. See also, Berger v. U.G.I. … In return, employers were immunized from civil suits which, if won by the employee, might result in substantial losses to employers.

Husak v. Berkel, Inc.

234 Pa. Super. 452 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1975

Payne, 217 Pa. 252, 262 , 66 A. 553, 557 (1907)]; (3) such contracts must be construed against the party seeking immunity from liability under their provision; (4) the burden of establishing the immunity is upon the party … As a result of these considerations, we find that the additional defendant SCM did not prove, clearly and without doubt, that it has divested itself of all liability in the claim brought by the plaintiff John A.

Commonwealth v. Johnson

419 Pa. Super. 625 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 1992

This establishment was owned by the defendant, Joseph D’Amato, who suspected Mr. … Immunity Agreement, June 16, 1986, Record at 11. This agreement contemplated immunity as to any testimony or information gathered after the grant of immunity.

Dobransky, E. v. EQT Production

273 A.3d 1133 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 2022

The certified record clearly indicates that at Scotts Run HESI was responsible for “mud services” which included, inter alia, maintaining an inventory of barite. … Accordingly, EQT is similarly entitled to statutory employer immunity under Section 302(a)(2).

Williams v. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co.

133 Pa. Super. 1 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 1938

Appellants established prima facie cases. The function of malice in slander or libel is to rebut the defense of qualified privilege. … It was for the jury to pass on the credibility of appellee’s witnesses, and it Avas not the province of the court to declare that the facts necessary to establish the defense were conclusively established. McGeary v.

Wright v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc.

2011 Pa. Super. 9 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 2011

Section 300aa-22(b)(1) contains two subordinate clauses that qualify the grant of immunity to vaccine manufacturers. … Because Congress utilized conditional language in its grant of immunity to vaccine manufacturers, in order to conclude that Congress clearly and manifestly intended § 300aa-22(b)(1) as a complete bar to any type of claim,

In Re MJS

903 A.2d 1 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2006

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

McCrory Corp. v. Girard Rubber Corp.

225 Pa. Super. 45 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 1973

Pennsylvania maintained this conservative approach despite more liberal standards established by the United States Supreme Court decisions. … “Whether due process is satisfied must depend . . . upon the qualify and nature of the activity in relation to the fair and orderly administration of the laws which it was the purpose of the due process clause to insure.”

Franklin Township Auditors' Report

202 Pa. Super. 415 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 1963

When the decree of incorporation was recorded, the borough was established. At that time it had no borough officers. … In well considered legislation which involves such changes a schedule of temporary expedients is usually and properly added, and the expedients provided would need to -be very clearly unconstitutional to justify a court in