Case law

Schnupp v. Port Authority of Allegheny County

710 A.2d 1235 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 2, 1998

establishes that Appellees violated Schnupp’s federal and state civil rights. … The record in Schnupp’s case clearly indicates that at the least, genuine issues of material fact remain pending as to whether Appellees, while acting under the color of state law, committed acts which deprived Schnupp of

FRITZ v. WESTMORELAND COUNTY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2022

To establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination, a plaintiff must show (1) she is a member of a protected class, (2) she is qualified for her position, (3) she suffered an adverse employment action, and (4 … Generally, to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, a plaintiff must prove the following elements: (1) she is 40 years of age or older; (2) she suffered an adverse employment action; (3) she was qualified

ARDO v. PAGAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 2023

Ardo were clearly established at the time of occurrence. … Clearly Established Prong Moving on to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the court must now consider whether law pertaining to the allegedly violated right “was clearly established

D. Sobat and E. Sobat v. The Borough of Midland ~ Appeal of: E. Sobat

141 A.3d 618 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2016

to governmental immunity. … To qualify for an exception, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) the damages would be recoverable under common law or a statute against a person unprotected by immunity; and (2) the negligent act of the local agency or its

Litton RCS, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

376 F. Supp. 579 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 1974

The Commission’s reliance on the state law doctrine of sovereign immunity belies any argument that the Board of Arbitration of Claims Act clearly and expressly precludes private arbitration. 18 *589 The remaining issues concern … The members shall be appointed for terms of two, four, and six years, and shall serve until their respective successors shall be duly appointed and qualified.

Commonwealth v. Wibner

73 Pa. Super. 349 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 1920

The controlling facts as determined on the trial are as follows: The relation between the defendant and the prosecutrix was clearly established and resulted in the birth of a child May 27, 1917. … The identity of the child was clearly established.

MFS, INC. v. Dilazaro

771 F. Supp. 2d 382 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2011

Defendants Are Entitled To Qualified Immunity On All Federal Claims The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … . *449 In resolving claims of qualified immunity, a court must decide: 1) whether the facts alleged or shown by plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right, and 2) whether that right was clearly established at

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.

Mason & Dixon Lines, Inc. v. Mognet

166 Pa. Commw. 1 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 1994

As the trial court correctly noted, summary judgment is only appropriate when, after examining the record in favor of the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant clearly establishes its … We conclude, therefore, that Penn Eastern and Mognet have failed to establish any duty, either at common law or by statute, owed to them by the Commission.

Gulati v. Zuckerman

723 F. Supp. 353 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 1989

The decision most clearly on point is Becker v. Philco Corp., 372 F.2d 771 (4th Cir.1967). … Moreover, these acts clearly involve the exercise of discretion. They thus are of the sort that “the threat of liability [can] detrimentally inhibit,” Westfall, 108 S.Ct. at 584 , and merit the protection of immunity.

Hall Laboratories, Inc. v. Millar Bros. & Co.

152 F. Supp. 797 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 1957

the connection such person has with such product, as for example, ‘Prepared for * * ” In Establishment No. 261, where products are packed under the name of someone other than Millar or Engelhorn, the label bears the qualifying … This motion may also be viewed in terms of Engelhorn waiving its immunity from service of process in this judicial district. In Neirbo Co. v.

Darby v. L. G. De Felice & Son, Inc.

94 F. Supp. 535 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 1950

The court reached that conclusion by pointing out certain provisions in the Act of 1937 which in its opinion clearly indicated an intent on the part of the state legislature to create a separate and distinct legal entity. … The court further stated in 34 F.Supp. at page 29 : “In addition, the Pennsylvania State Highway Commission, an agency of the State, existed at the time of the creation of the •defendant Commission, and was qualified *to

Sweeney v. Merrymead Farm, Inc.

799 A.2d 972 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 7, 2002

The affirmative defense, however, must be clearly applica *976 ble on the face of the complaint. … Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer should be sustained only where the pleading is clearly insufficient to establish a right to relief.

Circle of Seasons Chart Sch v. NW Lehigh SD, Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2024

However, Charter School takes this statutory exemption one step further by asserting that the language of the Charter School Law “establishes a ‘self- executing’ presumption of tax immunity for charter school property.” … The issue before the Commonwealth Court was “what, if anything, a School District was required to prove, so as to qualify for an exemption under [the Assessment Law], once it established that the subject land [was] annexed

Zager v. Chester Community Charter School

594 Pa. 166 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2007

In excepting to the deemed denial of Zager’s requests, the letter indicated that the documents requested were clearly public records as defined by section 66.1 of the Rightr-toKnow Act, 65 P.S. § 66.1. 3 *170 By letter dated … Brown, 544 Pa. 31, 34 , 674 A.2d 670, 672 (1996), wherein we established that when analyzing whether an organization qualifies as an agency pursuant to the Right-to-Know Act, a critical inquiry is whether the organization

Merrell v. Chartiers Valley School District

579 Pa. 97 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2004

Thus, for a letter of elimination to qualify as a valid adjudication, it must (1) represent a final order, decree, decision, determination or ruling; (2) impact on individual personal or property rights, privileges, immunities … entitlement to a veteran’s preference, the burden falls to the employer to establish that the veteran was not qualified.

Manion v. Sarcione

192 F. Supp. 2d 353 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 2001

Defendants also assert absolute and qualified immunity. We accept as true the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint and draw in plaintiffs favor any reasonable inferences therefrom. Hishon v. … Consequently, we need not decide whether defendants are shielded by absolute or qualified immunity.

Miller v. Beard

699 F. Supp. 2d 697 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 2010

Hi No Qualified Immunity for Private Contractors Dr. Fishstein also contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages if their conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Reese v. Danforth

486 Pa. 479 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1979

Margiotti, 371 Pa. 188 , 88 A.2d 892 (1952), while “lower public officials” were only granted a conditional or qualified immunity that disappeared in the face of allegations of wanton, reckless, intentional, and malicious … duties imposed upon him, and whenever it appears that those duties are of a grave and important character, involving in the proper performance of them some of the functions of government, the officer charged with them is clearly

Maloney v. City of Philadelphia

111 Pa. Commw. 634 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 1987

In his appeal, Maloney contends the facts of the case establish a cause of action which falls within the real property exception to immunity provided for in 42 Pa. C. S. §8542(b)(3). … He then contends this makes the scaffolding a fixture and qualifies it as real property in the possession of the City.