abrogation doctrine in Pennsylvania

1984Until the abrogation of the doctrine of sovereign immunity by this Court in Mayle v. Pa. Dept. of Highways, 479 Pa. 384 , 388 A.2d 709 (1978) the generally established rule regarding the payment of interest by the Commonwealth was that the Commonwealth and its instrumentalities were not liable for interest on a sum unless there was either a statutory or a contractual basis for the interest claim.

1984Until the abrogation of the doctrine of sovereign immunity by this Court in Mayle v. Pa. Dept. of Highways, 479 Pa. 384 , 388 A.2d 709 (1978) the generally established rule regarding the payment of interest by the Commonwealth was that the Commonwealth and its instrumentalities were not liable for interest on a sum unless there was either a statutory or a contractual basis for the interest claim.

2015Id.

2009I write separately, however, to disassociate myself from the Majority’s characterization of the Superior Court’s holding as “attempting] to promulgate a new rule of criminal procedure,” Op. at 19, 27-29, 977 A.2d at 1093, 1099-1100, and to provide counterpoint to Chief Justice Castille’s Concurring Opinion advocating the abrogation of the exception to Grant created in Commonwealth v. Bomar, 573 Pa. 426 , 826 A.2d 831 (2003).

2009I write separately, however, to disassociate myself from the Majority’s characterization of the Superior Court’s holding as “attempting] to promulgate a new rule of criminal procedure,” Op. at 19, 27-29, 977 A.2d at 1093, 1099-1100, and to provide counterpoint to Chief Justice Castille’s Concurring Opinion advocating the abrogation of the exception to Grant created in Commonwealth v. Bomar, 573 Pa. 426 , 826 A.2d 831 (2003).

1993Montgomery v. Philadelphia, 392 Pa. 178 , 140 A.2d 100 (1958); Rok . *220 The abrogation of immunity defenses provided for in Section 8550 of the Judicial Code is applied only in those cases regarding employees of local agencies and has no bearing on the common law absolute privilege regarding high public officials.

1993Montgomery v. Philadelphia, 392 Pa. 178 , 140 A.2d 100 (1958); Rok . *220 The abrogation of immunity defenses provided for in Section 8550 of the Judicial Code is applied only in those cases regarding employees of local agencies and has no bearing on the common law absolute privilege regarding high public officials.

1993Factor v. Goode, 149 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 81, 612 A.2d 591 (1992), appeal denied, 533 Pa. 654 , 624 A.2d 112 (1993).

1984To the extent that we permit the claim of ineffectiveness of counsel to be raised on appeal for the first time, or in P.C.H.A. proceedings, we have created an exception to the rule expressed by Holmes, supra and established a safety valve to the abrogation of the doctrine of fundamental error under Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co., 457 Pa. 255 , 322 A.2d 114 (1974) as it applies to criminal cases.

1984To the extent that we permit the claim of ineffectiveness of counsel to be raised on appeal for the first time, or in P.C.H.A. proceedings, we have created an exception to the rule expressed by Holmes, supra and established a safety valve to the abrogation of the doctrine of fundamental error under Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co., 457 Pa. 255 , 322 A.2d 114 (1974) as it applies to criminal cases.

1981Our examination of the Act directs us to the conclusion that its purpose is to establish certain limits to the liability to which political subdivisions become exposed as a result of the abrogation of the doctrine of governmental immunity by the holding in Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public Education, 453 Pa. 584 , 305 A.2d 877 (1973).

1981Our examination of the Act directs us to the conclusion that its purpose is to establish certain limits to the liability to which political subdivisions become exposed as a result of the abrogation of the doctrine of governmental immunity by the holding in Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public Education, 453 Pa. 584 , 305 A.2d 877 (1973).

1833It is contended, however, that the act ought to- be so construed as to exclude the present case, by reason of the judgment which had passed in a previous action for the defendants: and for this, reliance is had on the decision in Barnet v. Barnet, 15 Serg. & Rawle 72 , in which, however, no more was decided than that the abrogation of a rule which had made a different case, did not render a judgment erroneous pending the writ of error, which was free from error when it was rendered.