Case law

Roth v. Borough of Verona

74 Pa. Commw. 352 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 17, 1983

Although the trial court’s order clearly dismissed the Local' Agency Law appeal, there is no discussion of that issue in the trial court’s opinion. … S. §101 is as follows: , , Any final order, decree, decision, determination or ruling by an agency affecting personal or property rights, privileges, immunities, duties, liabilities or obligations of any or all of the parties

Matute v. Carson Long Institute

160 F. Supp. 827 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 1958

Without the review in detail of its financial structure and administration, it will suffice to state that the findings of fact of the court below in that case did not establish that the Ogontz School qualified for the tax … The comment of the court in the Hill case indicates clearly why the Ogontz case is easily distinguished from the instant case.

City of Philadelphia v. Melendez

156 Pa. Commw. 271 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 1993

The City argues that case law has clearly established that a parked vehicle is not in operation, and that claims involving a parked vehicle are not actionable under the vehicle exception to governmental immunity. … As previously established, the facts of this case do not fall within any *277 of the potentially applicable exceptions to governmental immunity, and therefore, Crowell does not apply.

Commonwealth v. Franklin

397 Pa. Super. 265 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 1990

The record clearly establishes that Mr. … Because the record clearly indicates that Mr.

Katzenmoyer v. City of Reading, PA

158 F. Supp. 2d 491 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 21, 2001

The court cannot grant judgment on the pleadings “unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Kruzits v. … There are at least three ways to establish the existence of policy or custom.

Kirby v. Loyalsock Township School District

837 F. Supp. 2d 467 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 2011

In the alternative, Defendant DiMarco and Defendant Mextorf assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity. (Id.) … Qualified Immunity In addition to arguing that Plaintiff has failed to establish as a matter of law that her constitutional rights were violated, Defendant DiMarco and Defendant Mextorf assert that they are entitled to qualified

Goryeb v. Com. Dept. of Public Welfare

525 Pa. 70 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 17, 1990

enumerated exceptions to immunity under the Sovereign Immunity Act relates to health care. … “Under well established precedent, if plaintiff produces sufficient evidence to demonstrate the mental condition of [the patient] warranted the duty asserted, the hospital would clearly be responsible for injury to the person

Community College v. Aliquippa School District

4 Pa. Commw. 483 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 1972

of those actually voting, unless a contrary legislative intention is very clearly expressed.” … Since we have determined that the Board was properly established, there is no need to address ourselves to the question of whether the college was immune from challenge as a de facto college.

Sowers v. Bradford Area School District

694 F. Supp. 125 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 29, 1988

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants Smith, Miller and Shuey also seek dismissal on the basis that their actions were within the scope of those actions protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. 15 Qualified … The individual defendants’ eligibility for dismissal of this action under the qualified immunity doctrine turns on whether a reasonable person would have known that their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional

Herman v. Greene County Fair Board

112 Pa. Commw. 615 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 1988

Summary judgment is properly granted where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party has clearly established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Kuehner v. Parsons, 107 Pa. … We believe the Legislature has clearly precluded the imposition of liability on itself or its local agencies for acts of third parties by its language of §8541, supra, and that it has not seen fit to waive immunity for these

D.M. ex rel. J.M. v. County of Berks

27 F. Supp. 3d 594 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 2014

Qualified Immunity Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from suit under 42 1J.S.C. § 1983 so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … While district court precedent “may be relevant to the determination of when a right was clearly established for qualified immunity analysis,” that is only in “the absence of binding precedent in this circuit.” Doe v.

Dennis v. DeJong

867 F. Supp. 2d 588 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2011

of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct. … Qualified immunity will be upheld on a motion to dismiss “only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Thomas, 463 F.3d at 291 (internal quotations omitted).

Smith v. PORTER TP., CLINTON COUNTY

141 Pa. Commw. 244 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 1991

Definitions The following words and phrases when used in this chapter shall have, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the meanings given to them in this section: * * * * * * "Employee.” … damages suffered as a result of Fairview Township’s alleged negligence in failing to hire a competent sewage enforcement officer, failing to ascertain that the individual serving in that capacity was properly trained and qualified

Shedrick v. William Penn School District

654 A.2d 163 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 1995

real property exception to local agency immunity. … For cases which have clearly defined this principle, see Fitchett v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp.

Davis v. Philadelphia County

195 F. Supp. 2d 686 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 2002

These actions were clearly undertaken in Judge Richette’s official capacity, and, thus, Judge Richette has absolute judicial immunity from any suit arising from the actions of which Plaintiff complains. … However, Plaintiff cannot maintain a § 1983 claim against these attorneys because a court-appointed defense attorney does not qualify as a state actor for § 1983 purposes. See Hull v. Mallon, No.

Sherman v. City of Philadelphia

745 A.2d 95 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 2000

Although we acknowledge that this analysis clearly sets up an “exception” to an exception in governmental immunity, thereby obliterating a distinction between sidewalks owned by a local government and those owned by private … citizens, such an analysis is clearly reasonable and reaches a sensible result.

Mertz v. Temple University Hospital

25 Pa. D. & C.4th 541 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jun 28, 1995

Litostansky clearly led to the decision to discharge Mr. Litostansky. Thus, the chain of causation was established, and there was no conflicting evidence on gross negligence. … Pinsker’s unfamiliarity with the Pennsylvania statute did not render him un *563 qualified to be an expert in psychiatry. The court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying Dr.

Nelson v. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare

244 F. Supp. 2d 382 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 2002

Before weighing in on the contentious question of whether Title II validly abrogates state sovereign immunity, it is prudent to ask first whether plaintiff qualifies for relief under this provision of the ADA. … In the Chief Judge's opinion, "the ordinary meanings of `activity' and `program' clearly encompass those that take place in prisons." Id.

Davis v. School District

91 Pa. Commw. 27 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 1985

to enter into the swimming pool area and use the swimming pool without proper and adequate supervision; (6) Failing to make said swimming pool safe for plaintiffs’ decedent’s use; (7) Failing to have lifeguards or other qualified … , writing that: The averments in the appellant’s complaint clearly indicate that the gravamen of his action was the alleged negligence of district employees within respect to an activity on district premises. . . .

Kuzel v. Krause

658 A.2d 856 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 8, 1995

A claim for wrongful discharge is made out when the plaintiff establishes that his or her discharge is a violation of a clearly definable right that “strikes at the heart of citizens’ social right, duties and responsibilities … Because of our Supreme Court’s interpretation of 42 Pa.C.S. § 8550, willful misconduct requires Employees here to establish more than wrongful discharge to make the defense of official immunity unavailable to Krause.