Case law

Napoli v. Bianco

342 Pa. Super. 235 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 10, 1985

and permanent” as to qualify as an exception to the tort immunity provisions of the No-Fault Act. … This afforded the trial court an opportunity to grant a new trial on the basis of a recent decision which reversed a previously established rule.

Szymanski-Gallagher v. Chestnut Realty Co.

409 Pa. Super. 323 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 1991

Clearly, Gregg did not agree to such an undertaking. Nor did Gregg expressly waive the statutory immunity of the Act. … However, nowhere in the opinion is it established that an express waiver is necessary to implicate indemnification liability.

Berg v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc.

280 Pa. Super. 495 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 1980

. *501 Clearly the normal foreseeable harm to an employee that goes with any job termination was exceeded, see, Geary, supra. … Depending upon the importance of defendants actions to society, the privilege may be absolute or qualified.

Z.F.I v. Bethanna, W.

2020 Pa. Super. 286 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 2020

They were clearly listed in her report. She clearly offered this opinion. ... MR. DOYLE: She clearly offered this opinion. … The Defender Association then filed a supplemental post-trial motion, claiming it was entitled to JNOV “based upon a qualified sovereign immunity.”

Commonwealth v. Johnson

323 Pa. Super. 33 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 1983

The court found that “[t]he testimony sought through th[e] requested grant of judicial use immunity ha[d] not been shown to be clearly exculpatory or essential in any case.” N.T. 46 (4/21/81). … As we have noted, the court in Smith held that “it would be appropriate for the immunity application to be denied” if the record “establishes that the public interest would be disserved by a grant of immunity to a defense

Snead v. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

2007 Pa. Super. 204 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 2007

Although we will repeat several times infra that under Pennsylvania law, the animals are considered property, this court clearly recognizes that dogs as pets hold a unique place in many people’s lives as friend, companion … not make SPCA a “Commonwealth agency” for immunity purposes.

Kenney v. Jeanes Hospital

2001 Pa. Super. 48 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 2001

and, thus, qualifies as a statutory employer. … Moreover, our review of the issue clearly indicates that it is completely without merit. ¶ 12 Appellants’ remaining issues are challenges to the constitutionality of the statutory employer defense.

Black v. Labor Ready, Inc.

2010 Pa. Super. 72 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2010

The court further determined that the evidence clearly shows that Appellee was Appellant’s employer and that Appellee, therefore, is immune from suit. … Our Supreme Court has not definitively established whether the second element (successful maintenance) is strictly necessary to implicate judicial estoppel or is merely a factor favoring the application.

In Re Petition to Compel Cooperation With Child Abuse Investigation

2005 Pa. Super. 188 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 20, 2005

On appeal the defendants argued the grant of summary judgment in their favor was appropriate because they were entitled to immunity for their actions under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The court held that the Social Services caseworker and the police officer were not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, as the trier of fact could conclude that reasonable persons in their positions

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

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

Hudec’s gun and interstate commerce had clearly ended by the time he brought the gun into his home for personal use. … PLCAA therefore grants total immunity from common-law liability to the gun industry whenever the Acts applies.

Freundlich & Litman, LLC v. Feierstein, E.

2017 Pa. Super. 40 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 2017

The Dragonetti Act requires, in pertinent part, the following elements to establish a cause of action under the statute: (a) Elements of action. … Super. 1998) (“We find that the policy bases for applying the doctrine of absolute immunity … are not present in the instant appeal.”); Moses, 549 A.2d at 957 (“Such an extension of immunity evinces the strong policy behind

Commonwealth v. Tyson

800 A.2d 327 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 29, 2002

In adopting this qualified privilege, this Court stated that the party seeking disclosure must establish the following to overcome the privilege: (1) it *332 exhausted attempts to obtain the information from other sources … The court’s December 13, 2000, order clearly indicates that the dominant purpose of the contempt sanction was to coerce appellants into complying with the subpoenas.

Wilson v. School Dist. of Philadelphia

410 Pa. Super. 416 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1991

Therefore, this is clearly a “matter conducted pursuant to Sub-chapter C of Chapter 85.” … We may retain jurisdiction if such action would serve the interests of judicial economy, but should transfer the matter if to do so would serve other interests, such as avoiding the establishment of possibly conflicting lines

Commonwealth v. OISTER

201 Pa. Super. 251 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 1963

The defendant Oister also claims immunity under the Act of April 27, 1927, P. L. 450, §4, as amended, 35 PS §1184. … This act provides immunity only to a person summoned by the State Police and compelled to testify in relation to any matters subject to their inquiry and investigation, the immunity to extend to any matter concerning which

Commonwealth v. Kelly

245 Pa. Super. 351 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 1976

In the case at bar, the qualifying witness, a Lt. … We conclude that these reports were properly qualified as business records.

Myers v. COM., DEPT. OF LABOR & INDUSTRY

312 Pa. Super. 61 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 1983

Thus, in McNair, supra, the court qualified its holding as follows: As it was admitted there was no bad faith and the mistake was an error of judgment____ 324 Pa. at 62-63 , 187 A. at 505 . … Mateo, 360 U.S. 564 , 79 S.Ct. 1335 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1434 (1959) (establishing absolute civil immunity for federal administrative officers.)

Bell v. Kater

2008 Pa. Super. 18 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2008

In order to establish immunity under the Work *298 ers’ Compensation Act, the defendant is required to establish that her act or omission occurred while she was in the “same employ” as the plaintiff, that is, in the course … Absent immunity by the Workers’ Compensation Act, the Bells’ complaint in negligence was clearly within the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas. ¶ 28 Kater’s reliance on LeFlar v. Gulf Creek Indus.

Com. v. Marmillion, M.

2023 Pa. Super. 267 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 2023

It is the defendant who carries the burden of proof to establish she is entitled to immunity under the Act. See Commonwealth v. Lehman, 231 A.3d 877 (Pa. 2020). … Even though the Act potentially provides immunity for Marmillion’s possession of a controlled substance charge, she has failed to establish the trial court erred by failing to grant her immunity for that offense under the

Moore v. Cobb-Nettleton

2005 Pa. Super. 426 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2005

The defendants were clearly qualified to conduct an evaluation of M.M. … The statements in defendant’s affidavit clearly establish the existence of a conditional privilege.

Com. v. Coyne, S.O.

2025 Pa. Super. 201 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 2025

Relatedly, it criticizes the court for failing to assess whether Appellees’ actions satisfied the objectively reasonable standard associated with the principle of qualified immunity enshrined in federal law. … Even if it were not waived, the argument fails because the authority that the Commonwealth cites in support of its position relates to qualified immunity, a doctrine that protects government officials from civil liability