Case law

Scicchitano v. County of Northumberland

112 F. Supp. 3d 293 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2015

The decision to privatize the Weatherization Department is clearly one which generally regulates the affairs of the county. … Plaintiffs initially argued that a preliminary injunction would-serve the public interest because it would ensure the continued and uninterrupted services to the community members qualifying for services.

Brickhouse v. Spring-Ford Area School District

540 Pa. 176 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 1995

certificate, he is qualified. … These features may establish a veteran’s eligibility to be considered for the position, but they will not establish that he is “qualified” for the job.

Boorse v. Springfrield Township

377 Pa. 109 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 1954

Chief Justice Hob ace Stern, Plaintiff’s case cannot surmount the harrier of the rule establishing the immunity of municipalities from liability for torts committed by their employes in the course of performance of a governmental … It is true that municipalities are not clothed with immunity in certain cases, such as those involving highway construction, the building of public works, or the maintenance of a nuisance; these are well established exceptions

Jacobs v. Merrymead Farm, Inc.

799 A.2d 980 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 7, 2002

Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer should be sustained only where the pleadings are clearly insufficient to establish a right to relief. Any doubt must be resolved in favor of overruling the demurrer. … The affirmative defense, however, must be clearly applicable on the face of the complaint.

Willowby Ex Rel. McKoy v. City of Philadelphia

946 F. Supp. 369 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 1996

Qualified Immunity The United States Supreme Court provided the current standard for “good faith” or “qualified” immunity in Harlow v. … The defendant officers do not merit qualified immunity here.

Cagey, J., Aplt. v. PennDOT

179 A.3d 458 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 2018

On appeal, the Cageys argue that Dean is inapplicable to the facts of this case because Dean establishes only that the Commonwealth's failure to install a guardrail does not give rise to a waiver of sovereign immunity under … Lewis, 523 Pa. 30 , 565 A.2d 122 , 126 (1988), the Cageys contend that the General Assembly clearly intended PennDOT to be liable in the case at bar. Cageys' Brief at 16-17.

Kocher v. Larksville Borough

926 F. Supp. 2d 579 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2013

This prong “of the qualified immunity analysis therefore ‘turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.’ ” Montanez … Kocher claims that Individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity by simply stating that a “stigma-plus” claim is clearly established.

A.D. Brown v. K.R. Bradford

194 A.3d 1141 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2018

Brown has utterly failed to establish such substantial doubt. There is nothing in the record to establish any basis for the Trial Court’s recusal. … It is undisputed that Brown qualifies as an abusive litigator.9 In addition, Brown’s claims against FJD Defendants are barred by immunity. 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 8501-8550.

Ekwunife v. City of Philadelphia

245 F. Supp. 3d 660 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2017

“Ultimately, whether a prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity depends on whether she establishes that she was functioning as the state’s ‘advocate’ while engaging in the alleged conduct that gives rise to the constitutional … In Buckley, the Supreme Court found that a prosecutor’s alleged fabrication of false evidence during the preliminary investigation of an unsolved crime was protected only by qualified immunity, not absolute immunity.

Harrell v. Porter

19 Pa. D. & C.2d 385 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County · Dec 26, 1958

Plaintiff’s averments as to the place of the alleged negligent acts clearly establish that the locus in quo was on or about that portion of the Pennsylvania Turnpike which is subject to the provisions of the Western Pennsylvaina … The Ewalt decision established the rule that, except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, the commission is immune from liability for negligent acts of its employes.

Allentown State Hospital v. Gill

88 Pa. Commw. 331 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 1985

If so, immunity has been waived. … condition of [the patient] warranted the duty asserted, the hospital would clearly be responsible for injury to the person or property of third parties where such injury resulted from the hospital’s negligent failure to

Balentine v. Aplt. v. Chester Water Auth

191 A.3d 799 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 2018

Judge Friedman maintained that the majority erred by distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary movement of a vehicle because "the statute does not qualify the word 'operation.' " Id. at 77 . … Balentine has pled facts sufficient to establish a prima facie cause of action in negligence based on acts that constitute the operation of a vehicle.

Lindenmuth

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 2026

) whether those rights were “clearly established” at the time of the incident. … Barkes, 575 U.S. 822, 825 (2015) (“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the

Flagiello v. Pennsylvania Hospital

417 Pa. 486 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 1965

Furthermore, it is well established that where a trial Judge in a criminal case makes a clearly erroneous, outrageous and unconstitutional ruling or decision against the Commonwealth— in such a case if the defendant is acquitted … Pittsburgh, supra, and said (pages 76, 77-78) : “The immunity of an eleemosynary institution from tort liability has long been the established rule in Pennsylvania: Bond v.

Simmons v. St. Clair Memorial Hospital

332 Pa. Super. 444 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 1984

Clair Hospital should be granted immunity for ordinary negligence. We will address appellant’s contentions seriatim. I. … The immunity issue in this case is potentially moot and we decline to consider that issue at this time. Id.

Stubbs Ex Rel. Goolsby v. Kline

463 F. Supp. 110 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 1978

In the alternative, the officers of the Commonwealth assert a qualified immunity as a defense. … The individual officers urge, however, that the defense of “qualified immunity” bars the instant action. We disagree.

Wilson v. School Dist. of Philadelphia

410 Pa. Super. 416 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1991

Therefore, this is clearly a “matter conducted pursuant to Sub-chapter C of Chapter 85.” … We may retain jurisdiction if such action would serve the interests of judicial economy, but should transfer the matter if to do so would serve other interests, such as avoiding the establishment of possibly conflicting lines

United States v. Cianciulli

482 F. Supp. 585 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 1979

For example: Ladies and gentlemen, those who cooperated were immunized. Those who changed their testimony were immunized. … Yet they came in and they got immunity. It doesn’t make sense.

Gustafson, M. v. Springfield 282 A.3d 739

282 A.3d 739 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2022

Hudec’s gun and interstate commerce had clearly ended by the time he brought the gun into his home for personal use. … PLCAA therefore grants total immunity from common-law liability to the gun industry whenever the Acts applies.

Roe v. Pennsylvania Game Commission

147 A.3d 1244 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2016

Thus, “[a]l-though the Commonwealth traditionally had sovereign immunity from suit, the establishment of the Board ... waived that immunity by providing a tribunal whose specific duty was to entertain contract actions against … The affirmative defense, however, must be clearly applicable on the face of the complaint.