Case law

Jones v. Peterman

743 A.2d 537 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 1999

These defendants have no statewide policymaking functions, so do not qualify as officers of the Commonwealth for purposes of the Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction. … Jones seeks monetary damages for an alleged civil conspiracy to deprive him of his rights, which places his cause of action clearly within the definition of “action in trespass.”

S. Hoover v. S.A. Stine, PennDOT and the Borough of Waynesboro

153 A.3d 1145 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 2016

Not only has Hoover failed to establish that Waynesboro or PennDOT’s purported negligence caused her injuries, she has failed to establish that the alleged negligence fell within any exception to immunity. … In this case, the z-bricks and concrete headers clearly established the path for pedestrian egress across the highway, just as the painted crosswalk did in Glenn, thereby serving

Chase Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Federal Home Loan Bank Board

269 F. Supp. 965 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 23, 1967

seeks, among other things, a preliminary injunction to prevent Board from giving effect to its Order No. 20,347 permitting the co-defendant, Liberty Federal Savings and Loan Association (hereinafter called “Liberty”) to establish … However, the words “this Act” clearly refer to the “Home Owners Loan Act of 1933” 4 in view of the first sentence of § 101(a) of P.L. 89-695, and plaintiff has submitted no information in either of its briefs (Documents 10

Yorty v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

2013 Pa. Super. 265 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 2013

Thus, to qualify as a collateral order, the order in question must meet three requirements: 1) separability from the main cause of action; 2) importance of the right to be reviewed; and 3) whether the claim will be irreparably … Grounding the line was clearly the obligation of appellee Yorty’s employer PPL Electric Utilities Corporation.

Cook v. Smith

812 F. Supp. 561 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 1993

Common Pleas Court of Lehigh County, 515 F.Supp. 1074, 1076 (E.D.Pa.1981), the court stated that a court reporter’s qualified immunity shields her from suit when she acts pursuant to “lawful authority or follows a judge’s … Defendant’s actions are clearly within her general subject matter jurisdiction and responsibilities as a court reporter.

Dume v. Elkcom Co., Inc.

368 Pa. Super. 280 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 23, 1987

Here, Judge Hoffman rejected Westinghouse’s assertion of immunity: We hold that Westinghouse is not a statutory employer because it has failed to establish that it was, in fact, obligated by contract to perform the activity … The trial court correctly deduced that appellee construction company fell squarely within the five requirements enunciated in McDonald to qualify as appellant’s statutory employer.

Service Employees International Union v. County of Butler

306 F. Supp. 1080 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 1969

Plaintiffs to establish jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act must allege that defendants acted under color of law. … Davis, 396 F. *1084 2d 730 [8th Cir., 1968], Whether or not the qualified immunity of acts done in good faith can be asserted by these defendants as a defense is a factual matter that can only be resolved by a trial.

DiJoseph v. City of Philadelphia

947 F. Supp. 834 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 1996

The next step is determining whether the alleged conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … I hold that qualified immunity applies to this ease, and therefore will grant summary judgment on this claim. 2.

Gunter v. Constitution State Service Co.

432 Pa. Super. 295 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 1994

It is well-established in this Commonwealth that “nothing is more adamantly established in American trial procedure *299 than that no one may testify to what somebody else told him[/her].” Johnson v. … Rather, she was preoccupied with establishing her state of mind at the time the conversation took place.

Ferri v. Rossetti

483 Pa. 327 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 1979

Pachtman, supra 4 Appellant here is urging in essence that assigned defense counsel’s immunity should not be absolute but rather qualified. … Pachtman, supra, did not unequivocally rule out the possibility of the functioned approach with regard to the prosecutor’s immunity under section 1983 actions, it did *332 clearly indicate that the immunity was an absolute

Pennsylvania State University v. Derry Township School District

557 Pa. 91 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 1999

The immunity from tax extends to property owned by agencies of the Commonwealth. Id. In Pennsylvania State University v. … Inasmuch as HMC does not qualify for tax-free status as property owned by an agency of the Commonwealth, a remand to the court of common pleas is necessary for a determination of whether HMC qualifies for exemption on an

Gale v. City of Philadelphia

86 A.3d 318 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 2014

First, a plaintiff must establish that “damages would be recoverable under common law or a statute creating a cause of action if the injury were caused by a person not having available a defense,” of governmental immunity … Under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the affirmative defense of governmental immunity should be raised by New Matter; however, where the defense of immunity is clearly applicable on the face of the complaint and

Brown v. Delaware Valley Transplant Program

420 Pa. Super. 84 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1992

We find that there is no dispute as to any material fact, that the undisputed evidence of record establishes the good faith of appellees, and that appellees are, as a matter of law, entitled to the qualified immunity provided … The qualified immunity provided by Section 8607(c) of the Act requires a “good faith” attempt to comply with all of the statutory requirements for organ donation.

Carpenter v. Pleasant

759 A.2d 411 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2000

Trial Court’s denial of the Motion was appealed. 3 The subject matter of this appeal is limited to the City of Chester’s liability under the traffic light exception to governmental immunity under the Political Subdivision … Since Conrad clearly has specialized skill, training, knowledge and experience in the area of Conflict Monitors and since such testimony would help educate the jury as to whether or not the implementation of such a device

Griffin v. Harris

480 F. Supp. 1072 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 1979

immunity has been waived. … Justice Douglas, writing for the Court, stated: [Wjhen Congress establishes such an agency, authorizes it to engage in commercial and business transactions with the public, and permits it to “sue and be sued,” it cannot be

Farago v. Sacred Heart General Hospital

365 Pa. Super. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 1987

Farago claims that she was raped; however, this has never been established. … Additionally, as a collateral matter to this issue of immunity, appellants argue that the lack of restraint upon Mrs. Farago was not a treatment decision which could be accorded immunity.

Smith v. Private Industry Council of Westmoreland & Fayette Counties, Inc.

622 F. Supp. 160 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 4, 1985

(“[T]he Thirteenth Amendment is not a mere prohibition of state laws establishing or upholding slavery, but an absolute declaration that slavery or involuntary servitude shall not exist in any part of the United States.”) … The Complaint clearly distinguishes between federal rights asserted under § 1985(3) and those rights accorded under Title VII.

K.G. Sheehan Vello v. D. DeMarco

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 2025

Because we conclude the facts averred do not establish with certainty that immunity applies, we affirm Common Pleas’ decision. … Without further factual development establishing the nature and purpose of the Board’s meeting, we agree with Common Pleas that DeMarco is not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity.

Muhammad ex rel. J.S. v. Abington Township Police Department

37 F. Supp. 3d 746 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 1, 2014

YAP program “did not violate clearly established law.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009). For that reason, he is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. See Reichle v. … There is no need to reach the defendants’ qualified immunity argument as to this claim, but I note that qualified immunity would not apply.

Graham v. United States

528 F. Supp. 933 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 1981

The Special Agent’s role in the events complained of appears to be investigative, and thus gives rise to only a qualified immunity. 2. … Qualified Immunity Defendants’ third immunity argument is that qualified immunity insulates the Special Agent from this lawsuit. The qualified-immunity defense, as propounded in Wood v.