Case law

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.

Commonwealth v. Scouton

20 Pa. Super. 503 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 1902

These essentials of the offense charged in the indictment being established, a prima facie case for the commonwealth was made out. … The learned judge committed no error in adverting to this qualifying principle in his answer to the defendant’s fourth point. 8.

Dudosh v. Warg

668 F. Supp. 944 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 1987

Qualified Immunity. The defendants next urge that we reconsider our decision that they are not entitled to qualified immunity as to the plaintiff’s equal protection claim. … As to the municipal defendant’s assertion that it is allowed to assert a “form” of qualified immunity, we reject this argument as well.

Gozdanovic v. Civil Serv. Com'n for City of Pittsburgh, Pa.

361 F. Supp. 504 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 1973

Guhel “reported” his findings to the Commission are insufficient to establish that plaintiff himself ever demanded a hearing. Under the quoted statute only the plaintiff could request a public hearing. … Clearly, the Pennsylvania Civil Service Act requires that civil service tests objectively measure an applicant’s fitness for the particular job he is applying for, and if the psychological test administered by the Commission

Tulewicz v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

529 Pa. 588 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 1992

They claim they are not only immune but that their immunity is not waivable, even if they negligently failed to do so before. … SEPTA, 512 Pa. 567 , 517 A.2d 1270 (1986), we held that SEPTA, by virtue of its enabling legislation, qualifies as a Commonwealth agency.

Com. v. Lehman, R.

2020 Pa. Super. 85 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 6, 2020

-5- J-A29018-19 The burden of proof under the Drug Overdose Response Immunity Act is not on the Commonwealth; rather, the defendant must establish that he is entitled to … if the person can establish the following . . .”).

Vantassel v. Brooks

355 F. Supp. 2d 788 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 2005

Defendants correctly note that the qualified immunity analysis turns on the “objective reasonableness” of the Defendant’s action “assessed in light of legal rules that were clearly established at the time action was taken … Gable, 823 F.2d 723 (3d *803 Cir.1987), the Third Circuit, rejecting a qualified immunity defense in the context of a political patronage context, stated that “as of 1982 the law was ‘clearly established’ that a public employee

Muhammad v. Hilbert

906 F. Supp. 267 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 1995

Furthermore, Defendant argues that she is entitled to a defense of qualified immunity. … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 , 111 S.Ct. 1789, 1793 , 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991) (if plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, defendant does not bear burden of proving qualified

Alexander v. Polk

572 F. Supp. 605 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 1983

The City asserts that the assessment of any damages against individual defendants 27 is barred by qualified immunity. … While there is no qualified immunity for the City or for municipal officials acting in their official capacity, there is a qualified immunity for these officials in their personal capacity. Owen v.

O'Brien, J. v. Beatty, K.

329 A.3d 685 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2024

Finally, preliminary objections seeking 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 … The standard for determining who qualifies as a high public official “focus[es] on the nature of the duties of the particular public officer, the importance of his office, and whether or not he has policy- making functions

Balletta v. Spadoni

47 A.3d 183 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 2012

Courts allow defendants to raise immunity by preliminary objection where the defense is clearly applicable and where the plaintiff does not object. Id. Both conditions exist here. … To that end, words which standing alone may reasonably be understood as defamatory may be so explained or qualified by their context as to make such an interpretation unreasonable.

T. Robinson v. Philadelphia Int'l. Airport ~ Appeal of: City of Philadelphia

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2025

As such, requiring a government entity “to engage in litigation from which [it] is immune and allowing such litigation to proceed clearly undermines the purpose of immunity.” Hommrich, 329 A.3d at 784. … It does not establish that Judge Kennedy’s grant of summary judgment to the City was clearly erroneous on the issue of the nature of the area where Robinson fell, which might have subjected the City to liability at trial.

Wertheimer v. Frank

206 F. Supp. 681 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 28, 1962

The court does not wish to indicate that all the facts stated above as not being established or as being disputed must be established in every case in which a motion for summary judgment is made on the ground of charitable … immunity.

Ehret v. Kulpmont Borough School District

333 Pa. 518 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 1938

partially destroy, or interfere with the general purposes of the code by conflict with other sections, the amendment should be strictly construed and made to conform to the general purposes unless the • legislative intent is clearly … to employ the necessary qualified teachers.

Gibellino v. Manchester Township

109 A.3d 336 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 2015

The trial court first determined that the Township is immune because Gibellino’s allegations in Count I clearly sound in tort as they are based on the contractor’s negligence in failing to properly install the backwater valves … To fall within the exception to immunity, Section 8542(b)(5) 13 provides that Gibellino was required to allege facts that established: 1. the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury

LeGRANDE v. Department of Corrections

920 A.2d 943 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2007

Before this Court, LeGrande argues that the Manual clearly constitutes an essential component of DOC’s decision making regarding the implementation of sentencing. … LeGrande also notes that DOC merely asserted the protections without properly establishing them.

Ortiz v. Allentown Housing Authority

42 Pa. D. & C.4th 1 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County · Feb 17, 1999

The immunity of a housing authority from suit is governed by the sovereign immunity doctrine for Commonwealth agencies set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. §8521 et seq., and not by the governmental immunity rule for local agencies contained … According to plaintiff’s expert, it is well-known to playground design professionals that there are softer materials available that are clearly more appropriate for this use.

Lamolinara v. BARGER

30 Pa. Commw. 307 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 25, 1977

First, we do not read the term “fixing” to require the affirmative establishment or creation of rights, privileges, immunities, duties or obligations. … His removal from duty for whatever reason, valid or not, whether by dismissal or suspension, clearly affected that property right.

Pahler v. City of Wilkes-Barre

207 F. Supp. 2d 341 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 5, 2001

Given these conclusions, it is obvious that there was no clearly established constitutional right of which the individual defendants should have been aware and, thus, they are also entitled to the defense of qualified immunity … immunity.

Carretti v. Schwanger

404 Pa. Super. 51 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 1991

Although, the usage of the word “request” is not qualified or explained by the trial court, nor are we capable of ascertaining the connotation of that word held by the trial court, it is clear that Moyer did not request appellant … Appellant was clearly not ordered/requested to go for sandwiches, she was on her own time when she went and indicated she was going to the restaurant in any event.