Case law

L. Marshall & P. Fuller v. SEPTA ~ Appeal of: New Jersey Transit & New Jersey Transit Corp.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 2023

Plaintiffs summarily conclude that because a NJ Transit bus accident “is an exception to state sovereign immunity,” “there is clearly no” immunity here. Id. at - . … Id.25 Although the Scanlon Court did not address the Tort Act, New York public entity may negate liability by establishing immunity.

Walker v. Spiller

54 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 24, 1999

Spiller claims in his defense that he had probable cause to arrest Walker and is entitled to qualified immunity on Walker’s claims. … When the defense of qualified immunity is raised, as it has been here, officers “who ‘reasonably but mistakenly’ conclude that their conduct comports with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment are entitled to immunity.

Michener v. Brady (In Re Brady)

243 B.R. 253 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2000

In hearing such appeals, the district court applies a clearly erroneous standard to the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact and a plenary standard to that court’s legal conclusions. … A legal assignment is a transfer of property, a right or interest from one person, the assignor, to another, the assignee, which transfers the entire interest in the thing assigned unless it is qualified. Huff v.

Z.F.I V. Bethanna, W.

244 A.3d 482 · 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.”

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Holmes

835 A.2d 851 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 2003

. § 8371. 7 First, SEPTA enjoys sovereign immunity unless the claim falls into one of the exceptions to sovereign immunity established by the legislature, and liability for bad faith claims handling is not one of the enumerated … Next, the plaintiff must establish that the cause of action falls within one of the specifically enumerated exceptions to sovereign immunity set forth at 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b). Appellees cannot satisfy either burden.

Flanagan v. Shively

783 F. Supp. 922 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 1992

Federal officials do not lose qualified immunity from a Bivens action unless violation of federal regulation bears upon or implicates a clearly established constitutional right. … Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege violation of any clearly established constitutional right, thus entitling defendants to qualified immunity from his allegations.

Commonwealth v. Brown

2011 Pa. Super. 47 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 2011

For this reason, the trial court found that Appellant failed to establish that he was amenable to treatment. … The Court concluded that from the prospective of the Commonwealth, an order granting transfer qualified as an interlocutory appeal as of right under Pa.

Klemka v. Nichols

943 F. Supp. 470 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 1996

Qualified immunity Even if we had resolved the foregoing issues in plaintiffs favor at this stage, we would, nevertheless, grant defendants’ motion on grounds of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity applies even in instances “where the rights were clearly established, if it was objectively reasonable for the official to believe that his acts did not violate those rights.” Frank v.

Greenberg v. Aetna Insurance

427 Pa. 511 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 1967

Public policy requires this, even if at times the privilege of immunity for false and malicious averments in pleadings is abused. … That Rule, as amplified by Rule 1030, provides: “(b) All affirmative defenses, including but not limited to those enumerated in Rule 1030, and the defenses of .. . privilege, qualified privilege, . . . shall be pleaded under

Wilson v. Dewees

977 F. Supp. 2d 449 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 2013

Qualified Immunity Finally, Officer Brockway argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claims. (Defs.’ Mot. 18-20.) … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers and other government officials “from liability for civil *461 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Northampton County Area Community College v. Dow Chemical, U.S.A.

389 Pa. Super. 11 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 1989

Pennsylvania Department of Highways, supra on the rationale that modern all-pervasive government should be held responsible *19 for its tortious conduct, the legislature re-established sovereign immunity by enacting the following … The legislature has clearly set forth the entities that comprise this class.

Winig, J., Aplt. v. Office of DA of Phila.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2025

Attorney and his assistant district attorneys (Prosecutors) gives rise to civil liability under the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (the Wiretap Act or the Act),1 and because the General Assembly clearly … It is readily apparent that high public official immunity is essentially a subset of sovereign immunity, as it fundamentally seeks to establish immunity in service of the public good. See Doe v.

Metropolitan Edison Co. v. City of Reading

125 A.3d 499 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 2015

facilities of steam, sewer, water, gas or electric systems owned by the local agency and located within rights-of-way, except that the claimant to recover must establish … This Court explained that to qualify for immunity under Section 8542(b)(5) of the Act, “the allegedly dangerous condition must have derived or originated from, or had its source as the local agency’s realty.” Id.

Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of O'Hara

676 A.2d 1255 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 21, 1996

Whether they are immune from suit turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the suit, and the official action must be assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the- action was taken … established that these individuals violated a “clearly established” right, as required to overcome the claim of qualified immunity and grant punitive damages.

Gregory v. Chehi

654 F. Supp. 670 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 1987

Although the defendants enjoy a qualified immunity from liability for actions taken within the scope of their authority, Sourbeer v. … Robinson, 791 F.2d 1094 (3d Cir.1986), they may be held liable if their actions violate clearly established constitutional limitations. Id. at 1103 .

Moser v. Heistand

545 Pa. 554 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 1996

It is well established that we must strictly construe exceptions to sovereign immunity because the legislature intended to exempt the Commonwealth from immunity only in specific situations. Snyder v. … While a plaintiff clearly may bring an action in respondeat superior against a Commonwealth agency medical facility because 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b)(2) of the Code specifically waives sovereign immunity for acts of health care

Bryson v. SOLOMON

97 Pa. Commw. 530 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 30, 1986

It clearly states that the Department of Streets shall establish and determine the type and location of traffic controls. … —Every school district transporting school children by school bus shall establish and maintain school bus loading zones at or near all schools to or from which school children are transported and shall establish school bus

Chilutti, S. v. Uber; Apl. of Uber

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 2026

Relevant to this appeal, the defendants in Pridgen filed motions for summary judgment, claiming that they were immune from suit under GARA. The trial court denied the motions. … In addition, this matter does not have anything to do with a claim of immunity from suit.

Sylvan Heights Realty Partners, L.L.C. v. LaGrotta

940 A.2d 585 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 2, 2008

Such is clearly not the case here. … Such a clearly definable, controlling issue is not present here.

In Re Grand Jury Investigation

412 F. Supp. 943 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 24, 1976

Accordingly, the five subpoenaed items dated prior to May 25, 1975, are not immune from production as work product. The three remaining items need not be produced. … Nothing falls more clearly within the area protected by the work product doctrine than the legal advice counsel may have given or considered giving a client during ongoing litigation. 1 .