Case law

Gustafson, M. v. Springfield, Inc.

2020 Pa. Super. 239 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2020

Thus, the plain text of the PLCAA dictates that either the gun industry has immunity from the entire lawsuit or no immunity at all. The Act does not immunize the industry from individual causes of action. … Once PLCAA immunity attaches to a qualified product under Section 7903(4), that immunity lasts into perpetuity, even if the product has ceased its transportation, injures someone who never entered any commercial transaction

Beam v. Daihl

2001 Pa. Super. 21 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2001

. § 1515(4) clearly states that district justices have jurisdiction to issue warrants. … Thus, the doctrine of judicial immunity bars appellant’s civil action against appel-lee.

Read v. Clearfield County

12 Pa. Super. 419 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 1900

There is no doubt that there would have been but one subject in the title, and that clearly expressed. … This is the rule established by all our cases. It is an application of the maxim expressio unius exclusio alterius.

Commonwealth v. Shaleen

30 Pa. Super. 1 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1905

The context in the 2d and 3d sections clearly shows, however, that anthracite miners only are referred to. … The power of the legislature to classify coal mines and to legislate for each class separately is clearly established in Durkin v. Kingston Coal Co., 171 Pa. 193 , and in Commonwealth v. Jones, 4 Pa Superior Ct. 362.

Com. v. South, F.

238 A.3d 413 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 2020

Further, “[t]he burden of proof under the [Act] is not on the Commonwealth; rather, the defendant must establish that he is entitled to immunity under the Act.” Commonwealth v. … Upon careful review of the record, we agree with the trial court that Appellant did not qualify for Section 780-113.7(c) immunity because he failed to satisfy the Act’s requirements.

Com. v. South, F.

2020 Pa. Super. 194 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 2020

Further, “[t]he burden of proof under the [Act] is not on the Commonwealth; rather, the defendant must establish that he is entitled to immunity under the Act.” Commonwealth v. … Upon careful review of the record, we agree with the trial court that Appellant did not qualify for Section 780-113.7(c) immunity because he failed to satisfy the Act’s requirements.

Commonwealth v. Finn

11 Pa. Super. 620 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 1899

It was intended to protect the privileges ■and immunities of citizens of the United States that is, such privileges and immunities as belong to them as citizens of the United States, as distinguished from those that belong … A. 470, “it only establishes a rule of evidence by which qualification to practice medicine and surgery is to be determined.”

Cooper v. Delaware Valley Medical Center

428 Pa. Super. 1 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1993

Clearly, a review of Judge Biester’s opinion establishes that he granted summary judgment in favor of DVMC on the basis that the hospital was a private institution and therefore no state action was involved in its decisions … Clearly, the Legislature recognized that hospitals, as organizations, are involved in the Peer Review Process.

In the Interest of: A.W., JR., a Minor

187 A.3d 247 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 4, 2018

Court orders for the child to receive all vaccinations forthwith”, without a proper factual and legal basis being established at the hearing of this matter . . . ? 2. … The record establishes that S.W., A.W., Jr., J.W., and M.W. are at risk without the additional medical monitoring and treatment that Parents oppose. Parents will not consent to the administration of vaccinations.

Commonwealth v. Einhorn

2006 Pa. Super. 322 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 2006

Because there is no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, and because Einhorn has not established that Flodin’s testimony would be clearly exculpatory, the application of Smith would not result in a different disposition. … Tumosa was qualified and accepted as a research chemist with specialization in the area of materials collection and preservation. 9 .

Stanton v. Lackawanna Energy, Ltd.

2003 Pa. Super. 83 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 2003

PP & L, however, asserted immunity under the RULWA and sought entry of summary judgment. … We will reverse the resulting order “only where it is established that the court committed an error of law or clearly abused its discretion.”

Dobransky, E. v. EQT Production

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

The matter before us concerns whether HESI — and by extension, EQT — qualify as statutory employers under the Workers’ Compensation Act (“WCA” or “the Act”)1 and, as such, enjoy immunity from tort liability for injuries … Atlas filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that it qualified as a statutory employer under Section 302(a)(1)(i) and, therefore, was immune from tort liability. Id.

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Magrini v. Magrini

263 Pa. Super. 366 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 1979

. § 23572, that all such funds in the hands of the city were immune from attachments for support. … (Immunity from assignment and alienation in the above context includes immunity from garnishment and attachment. See Treasury Regulations, 41 Fed.Reg. § 56334.)

Hinkal, M. v. Pardoe, G.

2016 Pa. Super. 11 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2016

In remanding the case, this Court reasoned that the contract at issue “clearly concerned health and safety” and identified a public interest in “assuring that those claiming to be qualified to follow a doctor’s orders are … the intent of the parties; 3) the language of the contract must be construed, in cases of ambiguity, against the pgrty seeking immunity from liability; and 4) the burden of establishing the immunity is upon the party invoking

Pollina v. Dishong

2014 Pa. Super. 153 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2014

Preliminary objections which seek the dismissal of a cause of action should be sustained only in cases in which it is clear and free from doubt that the pleader will be unable to prove facts legally sufficient to establish … Even assuming that Plaintiffs’ appeal before the BHA qualifies as a quasi-judicial proceeding, Pennsylvania jurisprudence would only extend judicial immunity to Kravitz for his participation as a witness in the BHA proceedings

Snyder v. Specialty Glass Products, Inc.

441 Pa. Super. 613 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 1995

These acts *630 clearly are ones which an employee such as Snyder would expect to occur at the workplace. … Therefore, under the test enunciated in McGinn, Snyder’s allegation of IIED does not qualify under the co-employee immunity provision in section 205 of the WCA.

Commonwealth v. Doolin

2011 Pa. Super. 133 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2011

However, this right is qualified to the extent of existing testimonial privileges of witnesses, including the privilege against self incrimination.” Commonwealth v. … Doolin does contend, however, pursuant to Smith, supra, that the proffered testimony is clearly exculpatory and there are no strong countervailing governmental interests in not granting immunity. Doolin’s Brief at 18.

La Russa Appeal

232 Pa. Super. 272 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1974

It is necessary here to examine the Commonwealth’s petition requesting the grant of immunity in order to establish whether or not the grant of immunity was proper in this case. … In that opinion, it was reasoned that the Legislature had clearly set limitations on the scope of immunity in the Act of November 22, 1968, supra, and had limited such grants of immunity to situations involving “organized

Stanton v. LACKAWANNA ENERGY, LTD.

2008 Pa. Super. 132 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 2008

Upon our review, our Court determined that PP & L qualified as an “owner” under the RULWA. … We also concluded that [the Stantons] had failed to plead or establish any evidence that PP & L acted maliciously or willfully, so as to invoke an exception to the immunity afforded owners under the RULWA.

Stanton v. Lackawanna Energy, Ltd.

2007 Pa. Super. 6 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2007

We also concluded that Appellants had failed to plead or establish any evidence that PP & L acted maliciously or willfully, so as to invoke an exception to the immunity afforded owners under the RULWA. … as “land” for the purposes of RULWA immunity.