Case law

City of Philadelphia v. Patton

148 Pa. Commw. 141 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 19, 1992

The City disingenuously argues that the enactment of the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, Act of November 26, 1978, P.L. 1399, formerly 53 P.S. §§ 5311.101-5311.803, establishing the statutory bar of governmental immunity … Id., 525 Pa. at 9 , 574 A.2d at 1044 . 4 An entire reading of the McHugh decision, however, clearly demonstrates that it does not support the City’s contention.

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 . . .”).

Johnson v. Miller

925 F. Supp. 334 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 1996

Next, both defendants argue that they are entitled to judicial immunity. In their answer, they did not raise judicial immunity, instead, they raised qualified immunity as their only affirmative defense. … Judicial immunity, like qualified immunity, is an immunity from suit, not just from damages. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-13 , 112 S.Ct. 286, 288 , 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam).

J. Brown v. Philadelphia Board of Ethics, & J.S. Creamer, Jr.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2026

Second, Plaintiffs contend the Executive Director was not a high public official under our well-established case law, and, therefore, Creamer was not entitled to absolute immunity. … Furthermore, Section 8550 of the Act explicitly limits its application to Sections 8545, 8546, 8548, and 8549 of the Act, which establish official immunity protections for local agency employees and do not pertain to immunity

Venosh v. Henzes

31 Pa. D. & C.5th 411 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County · Jul 17, 2013

The PRPA grants qualified immunity for health care providers participating *424 in a peer review process and establishes an evidentiary privilege applicable to peer review proceedings. See 63 P.S. §§ 425.3 — 425.4. … June 28, 2010), visiting Senior Judge John Leete found that since section 311 clearly states that documents “must be solely prepared for compliance with the Patient Safety Act” to be considered confidential, Moses Taylor’

Rothermel v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

672 A.2d 837 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 1996

Initially, we note that summary judgment is only appropriate when, after examining the record, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant clearly establishes its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. … Because Administrators have failed to establish a causal connection between the decedents’ accident and the condition of the property within DOT’s control, the real estate exception to state sovereign immunity, 42 Pa.C.S.

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.

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

Burton v. City of Philadelphia

121 F. Supp. 2d 810 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2000

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … As such, they are immune from liability as individuals.

Matthews v. Konieczny

515 Pa. 106 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 1987

Thus, although a single exchange can qualify one as a “customer”, the word connotes at least a capacity to regularly engage in transactions. … It does not end the inquiry; for the plaintiff still bears the burden of establishing causation. Id., 504 Pa. at 163 n. 4, 470 A.2d at 518 n. 4. .

Southersby Development Corp. v. Borough of Jefferson Hills

852 F. Supp. 2d 616 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 2012

Qualified Immunity McVicker alternatively argues that summary judgment should be granted in his favor because he is entitled to qualified immunity. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Burgan v. City of Pittsburgh

115 Pa. Commw. 566 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 3, 1988

. §8522, to waive the Commonwealths immunity only in “specific, clearly-stated situations” and that therefore the enumerated exceptions to immunity must *579 be strictly construed. Davidow v. Anderson, 83 Pa. … It further states that the city is responsible for establishing a *582 detour in accordance with Section 548 of the Law, 36 PS. §670-548.

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.

Grove v. City of York, Penn.

342 F. Supp. 2d 291 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2004

not have known that their actions violated clearly established rights. … Both of these claims were clearly established at the time Defendants acted.

Com. v. Marmillion, M.

306 A.3d 936 · 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

DuBree v. Commonwealth

8 Pa. Commw. 567 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 9, 1973

The Supreme Court, however, has yet to define clearly who is a “high public official.” In Montgomery v. … Clearly, they do not point to such intentionally malicious, wanton or reckless conduct as would overcome a presumption of conditional immunity, and, in no way could they overcome any presumption of absolute immunity.

Fowler v. Gettysburg School District

13 Pa. D. & C.4th 266 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Adams County · Nov 15, 1991

Summary judgment will be entered only if defendants clearly *267 are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Carns v. Yingling, 406 Pa. Super. 279 , 594 A.2d 337 (1991). … Plaintiff seeks to qualify his action under the real estate exception to immunity, as described in the Po *268 litical Subdivision Tort Immunity Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §8541(b)(3).

Carroll v. County of York

496 Pa. 363 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 1981

For the foregoing reasons, I would hold that the general grant of immunity in section 201 of the Act, 53 P.S. § 5311.201, denies access to the courts for redress for legal injury and clearly, palpably and plainly violates … political subdivisions from suit. 1 Whatever authority this section might give the Legislature to insulate the Commonwealth, our decisions clearly establish that it does not extend to political subdivisions.

Schrank v. Borough of Moosic

45 Pa. D. & C.4th 338 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County · Feb 7, 2000

With regard to this doctrine, the Linder court found, in that case, a mayor clearly qualified as a high public official since he routinely made significant public policy decisions and was accountable to the voting public. … Since their alleged remarks were clearly within the scope of their authority as members of Moosic Borough Council, they are immune from suit for slander.

League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 2018

Under federal common law, state legislative privilege and state legislative immunity is “qualified based on the nature of the claim at issue.” … Id. at 334. 5  Legislative Respondents clearly are not invoking qualified legislative privilege and immunity under federal common law; rather, they are invoking