Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2005 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Emergency Medical Services Council of Northwestern Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Department of Health of the Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2005When the ban imposed by the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity was abrogated, to clarify the Commonwealth Court’s power to intervene in these matters with equitable relief, the legislature modified Section 4651 (72 P.S. § 4651^4) by inserting the word ‘exclusive’ to emphasize that only the Board should hear these matters. [ 499 Pa. at 8 ,] 451 A.2d at 209 . 2005When the ban imposed by the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity was abrogated, to clarify the Commonwealth Court’s power to intervene in these matters with equitable relief, the legislature modified Section 4651 (72 P.S. § 4651^4) by inserting the word ‘exclusive’ to emphasize that only the Board should hear these matters. [ 499 Pa. at 8 ,] 451 A.2d at 209 . | 1 | 4 |
Philadelphia Life Insurance v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1996Before the doctrine of sovereign immunity was abrogated by our Supreme Court in Mayle v. Pennsylvania Department of Highways, 479 Pa. 384 , 388 A.2d 709 (1978), the Court had explained that sovereign immunity applied only to “[s]uits which seek to compel affirmative action on the part of state officials or to obtain money damages to recover property from the Commonwealth ...; suits which simply seek to restrain state officials from performing affirmative acts are not within the rule of immunity.” Philadelphia Life Insurance Company v. Commonwealth, 410 Pa. 571, 576 , 190 A.2d 111, 114 (1963) ( 1996Before the doctrine of sovereign immunity was abrogated by our Supreme Court in Mayle v. Pennsylvania Department of Highways, 479 Pa. 384 , 388 A.2d 709 (1978), the Court had explained that sovereign immunity applied only to “[s]uits which seek to compel affirmative action on the part of state officials or to obtain money damages to recover property from the Commonwealth ...; suits which simply seek to restrain state officials from performing affirmative acts are not within the rule of immunity.” Philadelphia Life Insurance Company v. Commonwealth, 410 Pa. 571, 576 , 190 A.2d 111, 114 (1963) ( | 1 | 2 |
Clark v. Pennsylvania State Policegreen2 sentences1982When the ban imposed by the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity was abrogated, to clarify the Commonwealth Court’s power to intervene in these matters with equitable relief, the legislature modified Section 4651 (72 P.S. § 4651-4) by inserting the word ‘exclusive’ to emphasize that only the Board should hear these matters.” Emergency Medical Services Council of Northeastern Pa., Inc. v. Dept. of Health, 499 Pa. 1, 7-8 , 451 A.2d 206, 209 (quoting Clark v. Pennsylvania State Police, 496 Pa. 310, 314 , 436 A.2d 1383, 1385 (1981). 1982When the ban imposed by the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity was abrogated, to clarify the Commonwealth Court’s power to intervene in these matters with equitable relief, the legislature modified Section 4651 (72 P.S. § 4651-4) by inserting the word ‘exclusive’ to emphasize that only the Board should hear these matters.” Emergency Medical Services Council of Northeastern Pa., Inc. v. Dept. of Health, 499 Pa. 1, 7-8 , 451 A.2d 206, 209 (quoting Clark v. Pennsylvania State Police, 496 Pa. 310, 314 , 436 A.2d 1383, 1385 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mayle v. Pennsylvania Department of Highways
green
2 sentences1996Before the doctrine of sovereign immunity was abrogated by our Supreme Court in Mayle v. Pennsylvania Department of Highways, 479 Pa. 384 , 388 A.2d 709 (1978), the Court had explained that sovereign immunity applied only to “[s]uits which seek to compel affirmative action on the part of state officials or to obtain money damages to recover property from the Commonwealth ...; suits which simply seek to restrain state officials from performing affirmative acts are not within the rule of immunity.” Philadelphia Life Insurance Company v. Commonwealth, 410 Pa. 571, 576 , 190 A.2d 111, 114 (1963) ( 1996Before the doctrine of sovereign immunity was abrogated by our Supreme Court in Mayle v. Pennsylvania Department of Highways, 479 Pa. 384 , 388 A.2d 709 (1978), the Court had explained that sovereign immunity applied only to “[s]uits which seek to compel affirmative action on the part of state officials or to obtain money damages to recover property from the Commonwealth ...; suits which simply seek to restrain state officials from performing affirmative acts are not within the rule of immunity.” Philadelphia Life Insurance Company v. Commonwealth, 410 Pa. 571, 576 , 190 A.2d 111, 114 (1963) ( | 3 | 1983–1996 |
Shirks Motor Express Corp. v. Messner
green
2 sentences1987Philadelphia Life Insurance Company v. Commonwealth, 410 Pa. 571 , 190 A.2d 111 (1963); Roy Stone Transfer Corp. v. Messner, 377 Pa. 234 , 103 A.2d 700 (1954); Shirks Motor Express Corp. v. Messner, 375 Pa. 450 , 100 A.2d 913 (1953). 1987Philadelphia Life Insurance Company v. Commonwealth, 410 Pa. 571 , 190 A.2d 111 (1963); Roy Stone Transfer Corp. v. Messner, 377 Pa. 234 , 103 A.2d 700 (1954); Shirks Motor Express Corp. v. Messner, 375 Pa. 450 , 100 A.2d 913 (1953). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Roy Stone Transfer Corp. v. Messner
green
2 sentences1987Philadelphia Life Insurance Company v. Commonwealth, 410 Pa. 571 , 190 A.2d 111 (1963); Roy Stone Transfer Corp. v. Messner, 377 Pa. 234 , 103 A.2d 700 (1954); Shirks Motor Express Corp. v. Messner, 375 Pa. 450 , 100 A.2d 913 (1953). 1987Philadelphia Life Insurance Company v. Commonwealth, 410 Pa. 571 , 190 A.2d 111 (1963); Roy Stone Transfer Corp. v. Messner, 377 Pa. 234 , 103 A.2d 700 (1954); Shirks Motor Express Corp. v. Messner, 375 Pa. 450 , 100 A.2d 913 (1953). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Smock v. Com.
green
2 sentences1982The exclusive remedy of monetary damages in the Board of Claims constituted a limited waiver of sovereign immunity. 9 Had it not been for the *628 legislative authorization of contract suits against the Commonwealth appellees would have been unable to sue the sovereign for breach of contract. 10 See Smock v. Commonwealth, 496 Pa. 204 , 210, 436 A.2d 615 , 618. 1982The exclusive remedy of monetary damages in the Board of Claims constituted a limited waiver of sovereign immunity. 9 Had it not been for the *628 legislative authorization of contract suits against the Commonwealth appellees would have been unable to sue the sovereign for breach of contract. 10 See Smock v. Commonwealth, 496 Pa. 204 , 210, 436 A.2d 615 , 618. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Brungard v. HARTMAN
green
1 sentence1980Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which determined that the Authority was an indispensable party, vacated our decree, and remanded the case to this Court. 4 While this long and arduous journey through the courts of Pennsylvania was taking place, the doctrine of sovereign immunity was abrogated by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 5 and thereafter restored by the Legislature. 6 Because we believed that this case might be affected by the resulting evolution of the law, we asked the parties to submit briefs 7 addressing any jurisdictional issues which may hav | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Steckley v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1980Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which determined that the Authority was an indispensable party, vacated our decree, and remanded the case to this Court. 4 While this long and arduous journey through the courts of Pennsylvania was taking place, the doctrine of sovereign immunity was abrogated by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 5 and thereafter restored by the Legislature. 6 Because we believed that this case might be affected by the resulting evolution of the law, we asked the parties to submit briefs 7 addressing any jurisdictional issues which may hav 1980Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which determined that the Authority was an indispensable party, vacated our decree, and remanded the case to this Court. 4 While this long and arduous journey through the courts of Pennsylvania was taking place, the doctrine of sovereign immunity was abrogated by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 5 and thereafter restored by the Legislature. 6 Because we believed that this case might be affected by the resulting evolution of the law, we asked the parties to submit briefs 7 addressing any jurisdictional issues which may hav | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Mistecka v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1980Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which determined that the Authority was an indispensable party, vacated our decree, and remanded the case to this Court. 4 While this long and arduous journey through the courts of Pennsylvania was taking place, the doctrine of sovereign immunity was abrogated by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 5 and thereafter restored by the Legislature. 6 Because we believed that this case might be affected by the resulting evolution of the law, we asked the parties to submit briefs 7 addressing any jurisdictional issues which may hav 1980Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which determined that the Authority was an indispensable party, vacated our decree, and remanded the case to this Court. 4 While this long and arduous journey through the courts of Pennsylvania was taking place, the doctrine of sovereign immunity was abrogated by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 5 and thereafter restored by the Legislature. 6 Because we believed that this case might be affected by the resulting evolution of the law, we asked the parties to submit briefs 7 addressing any jurisdictional issues which may hav | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Gibson v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence1980We have now considered the parties’ briefs, in addition to Gibson v. Commonwealth, Pa., 415 A.2d 80 (1980), the latest development in the chaotic evolution of the law of sovereign immunity, and determine that jurisdiction lies with this Court. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.