49 Pennsylvania opinions name it 8 courts 1968–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Upset Sale of Properties Against Which Delinquent 1981 Taxes Were Returned to the Tax Claim Unit on or About the First Monday of May, 1982green2 sentences2001The defense of governmental immunity is an absolute defense, directly analogous to our holding in workmen’s compensation cases and is not waivable ... nor is it subject to any procedural device that could render a governmental agency liable beyond the exceptions granted by the legislature.” [Citations omitted.] Tulewicz, 606 A.2d at 429 , quoting In re Upset Sale, 622 Pa. 230 , 232, 560 A.2d 1388, 1389 (1989) (taxing authority did not waive statutory defense of immunity by failing to raise it until its petition for allowance of appeal to Supreme Court). ¶ 29 Similarly, our Supreme Court has he 1994Similarly in In re: Upset Sale of Properties Against Which Delinquent 1981 Taxes Were Returned to the Tax Claim Unit On or About the First Monday of May 1982 (Skibo Property), 522 Pa. 230 , 560 A.2d 1388 (1989), we stated that the defense of governmental immunity is an absolute defense, directly analogous to our holding in workmen’s compensation cases and is not waivable nor is.it subject to any procedural devise that could render a governmental agency hable beyond the exceptions granted by the legislature.... | 3 | 10 |
Matarazzo v. Millers Mutual Group, Inc.green2 sentences2017Grp., Inc., 927 A.2d 689, 693 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (“a plaintiff may not avoid the defense of governmental immunity by couching a claim for the recovery of tort damages under a breach of contract theory”). 13 Because we conclude that a breach of contract claim regarding the contractual insurance requirement was not sufficiently pled, we need not address whether the Tort Claims Act acts as a bar to that claim or whether the Archdiocese is insured under the Harco Policy. 15 Furthermore, also supporting this conclusion, is the Archdiocese’s inconsistent reference in its filings, and the apparent co 2010See Matarazzo v. Millers Mutual Group, Inc., 927 A.2d 689, 693 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007) (“a plaintiff may not avoid the defense of governmental immunity by couching a claim for the recovery of tort damages under a breach of contract theory”). | 3 | 3 |
Usher v. Upper Saint Clair School Districtgreen2 sentences2003The court stated: “We believe that the teacher’s alleged failure to control the area of the experiment is more akin to the allegation of the failure to supervise the students which we held subject to the defense of governmental immunity in Robson.” 3 Id. at 465 , 487 A.2d at 1023 . 2003The court stated: “We believe that the teacher’s alleged failure to control the area of the experiment is more akin to the allegation of the failure to supervise the students which we held subject to the defense of governmental immunity in Robson.” 3 Id. at 465 , 487 A.2d at 1023 . | 2 | 3 |
Taylor v. City of Philadelphiagreen2 sentences2007Taylor v. City of Philadelphia, 692 A.2d 308, 313 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997), affirmed, 548 Pa. 568 , 699 A.2d 730 (1997) (footnote and citations omitted). . 2007Taylor v. City of Philadelphia, 692 A.2d 308, 313 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997), affirmed, 548 Pa. 568 , 699 A.2d 730 (1997) (footnote and citations omitted). [11] SPCA argues that, in the prior appeal, this court held against Snead on her Fourth Amendment claim. | 2 | 2 |
Lyons v. City of Philadelphiagreen2 sentences2005Lyons v. City of Philadelphia, 159 Pa.Cmwlth. 107 , 632 A.2d 1006, 1010 (1993). 1994Based on the foregoing, the trial court denied Yesavage’s preliminary objections after concluding that Yesavage’s allegations did not fall within any of the exceptions to governmental immunity set forth at 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(b). 11 Since “the defense of governmental immunity is an absolute unwaivable defense, not subject to any procedural device that could render the governmental agency liable beyond exceptions granted by the legislature”, Lyons v. City of Philadelphia, 159 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 107, 114, 632 A.2d 1006, 1010 (1993), we conclude that the trial court committed no error in consideri | 2 | 2 |
Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public Educationred2 sentences1987Order Now, May 13, 1987, the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County at Docket No. 80-12365, dated April 4, 1985, granting summary judgment in favor of Milmont Fire Co. and the Township of Ridley, is hereby affirmed. 1 The defense of governmental immunity is not available to either the Township or the Fire Company since the accident giving rise to this suit occurred on October 21, 1978, after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court abolished the immunity doctrine as to charities, *129 Flagiello v. Pennsylvania Hospital, 417 Pa. 486 , 208 A.2d 193 (1965), and as to local municipalities, Ay 1987Order Now, May 13, 1987, the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County at Docket No. 80-12365, dated April 4, 1985, granting summary judgment in favor of Milmont Fire Co. and the Township of Ridley, is hereby affirmed. 1 The defense of governmental immunity is not available to either the Township or the Fire Company since the accident giving rise to this suit occurred on October 21, 1978, after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court abolished the immunity doctrine as to charities, *129 Flagiello v. Pennsylvania Hospital, 417 Pa. 486 , 208 A.2d 193 (1965), and as to local municipalities, Ay | 1 | 4 |
Tulewicz v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authoritygreen2 sentences2001The defense of governmental immunity is an absolute defense, directly analogous to our holding in workmen’s compensation cases and is not waivable ... nor is it subject to any procedural device that could render a governmental agency liable beyond the exceptions granted by the legislature.” [Citations omitted.] Tulewicz, 606 A.2d at 429 , quoting In re Upset Sale, 622 Pa. 230 , 232, 560 A.2d 1388, 1389 (1989) (taxing authority did not waive statutory defense of immunity by failing to raise it until its petition for allowance of appeal to Supreme Court). ¶ 29 Similarly, our Supreme Court has he 1993In Tulewicz v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 529 Pa. 588, 593 , 606 A.2d 427, 429 (1992), our Supreme Court reiterated its holding in In re Upset Sale, 522 Pa. 230, 232 , 560 A.2d 1388, 1389 (1989), that the defense of governmental immunity is a nonwaivable absolute defense which is not subject to any procedural device that could render a governmental agency liable beyond the exceptions granted by the legislature. | 1 | 2 |
KILEY BY KILEY v. City of Philadelphiagreen1 sentence2026The Municipality contends that the trial court’s order 1 The Act “is a legislatively imposed shield of government immunity against any damages on account of any injury to any person or property by any act of a local agency or employees thereof or any other person, except as provided in the statute itself.” Kiley by Kiley v. City of Philadelphia, 645 A.2d 184, 185 (Pa. 1994). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Philadelphia Housing Authoritygreen1 sentence2019See id. 4 Where a trial court dismisses a complaint as a result of preliminary objections, this Court’s review is limited to determining whether the trial court committed an error of law or an abuse of 2 Appellant makes a number of allegations in the instant appeal, all of which hinge on whether the trial court erred in sustaining Appellees’ preliminary objections on the basis of the governmental immunity enjoyed by all Appellees pursuant to the Tort Claims Act. | 1 | 1 |
Lake v. Hankin Groupgreen1 sentence2018We overrule Respondents’ preliminary objection asserting the defense of governmental immunity. 7 Statute of Limitations It is well-settled that “claims for equitable relief are not subject to statutes of limitations.” Lake v. Hankin Group, 79 A.3d 748, 756 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013); see In re Estate of Moskowitz, 115 A.3d 372, 379-80 (Pa. Super. 2015). | 1 | 1 |
In Re: Estate of Moskowitz, L.green1 sentence2018We overrule Respondents’ preliminary objection asserting the defense of governmental immunity. 7 Statute of Limitations It is well-settled that “claims for equitable relief are not subject to statutes of limitations.” Lake v. Hankin Group, 79 A.3d 748, 756 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013); see In re Estate of Moskowitz, 115 A.3d 372, 379-80 (Pa. Super. 2015). | 1 | 1 |
McCarthy v. City of Bethlehemgreen1 sentence2016However, Section 8542(a) of the Judicial Code waives governmental immunity where a party demonstrates that: (1) the damages would be recoverable under common law or a statute creating a cause of action if the injury were caused by a person not having available the defense of governmental immunity; (2) the injury was caused by a negligent act of the local agency or its employee acting within the scope of his office or duties; and (3) the negligent act falls within one of the enumerated exceptions to governmental immunity. 42 Pa.C.S. §8542(a); McCarthy v. City of Bethlehem, 962 A.2d 1276, 1278 ( | 1 | 1 |
Orange Stones Co. v. City of Readinggreen1 sentence2015Orange Stones, 87 A.3d at 1022 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Stackhouse v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania State Policegreen1 sentence2012Greco v. Hazleton City Authority, 721 A.2d 399 , 402 n. 7 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998); see also Stackhouse v. Pennsylvania State Police, 892 A.2d 54 , 60 n. 7 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006) (noting that immunity may be raised in preliminary objections when to delay a ruling thereon would serve no purpose). | 1 | 1 |
Bendas v. Upper Saucon Townshipgreen2 sentences2009See also Bendas v. Upper Saucon Twp., 127 Pa.Cmwlth. 378 , 561 A.2d 1290 (1989) (same). 2009See also Bendas v. Upper Saucon Twp., 127 Pa.Cmwlth. 378 , 561 A.2d 1290 (1989) (same). | 1 | 1 |
Lindstrom v. City of Corrygreen2 sentences2001The Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8541-8542, provides the defense of governmental immunity against any damages resulting from injury to a person or property caused by any act of a local agency or its employee. 42 Pa.C.S. § 8541; Lindstrom v. City of Corry, 563 Pa. 579, 584 , 763 A.2d 394, 397 (2000). 2001The Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8541-8542, provides the defense of governmental immunity against any damages resulting from injury to a person or property caused by any act of a local agency or its employee. 42 Pa.C.S. § 8541; Lindstrom v. City of Corry, 563 Pa. 579, 584 , 763 A.2d 394, 397 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
Modern Shoppers World-Mt. Airy Corp. v. Philadelphia Gas Worksgreen1 sentence1994Id., — Pa.Cmwlth. at -, -, 643 A.2d at 137, 138-139 . | 1 | 1 |
| City of Philadelphia v. Middletongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lehnig v. Feltongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Philadelphia v. Glim
green
2 sentences2026Glim, 613 A.2d at 616-17 . 9 Id. at 1022 (some internal citations omitted). 2020Glim, 613 A.2d at 616-17 . | 3 | 2014–2026 |
Taylor v. City of Philadelphia
green
2 sentences2007Taylor v. City of Philadelphia, 692 A.2d 308, 313 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997), affirmed, 548 Pa. 568 , 699 A.2d 730 (1997) (footnote and citations omitted). . 2007Taylor v. City of Philadelphia, 692 A.2d 308, 313 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997), affirmed, 548 Pa. 568 , 699 A.2d 730 (1997) (footnote and citations omitted). . | 2 | 1998–2007 |
WURTH BY WURTH v. City of Philadelphia
green
2 sentences1992Wurth v. City of Philadelphia, 136 Pa. Commw. 629 , 584 A.2d 403 (1990); Pa.R.C.P. 1032. 1992In Wurth by Wurth v. City of Philadelphia, 136 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 629, 584 A.2d 403 (1990), the commonwealth court held that the defense of governmental immunity may be raised in preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer regardless of Pa.R.C.P. | 2 | 1992–1992 |
Turner v. Martz
green
2 sentences1991Turner v. Martz barred the use of governmental immunity through the Vested Rights Rule. 42 Pa. Commw. 328 , 401 A.2d 585 (1979). 1991Turner v. Martz barred the use of governmental immunity through the Vested Rights Rule. 42 Pa. Commw. 328 , 401 A.2d 585 (1979). | 2 | 1985–1991 |
Snead v. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
green
2 sentences2023Accordingly, we will not discuss her further. 2 It is well-established that “a defense of governmental immunity is an absolute defense and is non-waivable,” thus, “it may be raised at any time[.]” Snead v. Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of Pennsylvania, 929 A.2d 1169 , 1178 n.10 (Pa.Super. 2007). -2- J-S37005-22 NJ Transit has raised the following claims for our consideration: 1. 2023Accordingly, we will not discuss her further. 2 It is well-established that “a defense of governmental immunity is an absolute defense and is non-waivable,” thus, “it may be raised at any time[.]” Snead v. Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of Pennsylvania, 929 A.2d 1169 , 1178 n.10 (Pa.Super. 2007). -2- J-S37005-22 NJ Transit has raised the following claims for our consideration: 1. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Greco v. Hazleton City Authority
green
1 sentence2012Greco v. Hazleton City Authority, 721 A.2d 399 , 402 n. 7 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998); see also Stackhouse v. Pennsylvania State Police, 892 A.2d 54 , 60 n. 7 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006) (noting that immunity may be raised in preliminary objections when to delay a ruling thereon would serve no purpose). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Simko v. County of Allegheny
green
1 sentence2008Section 8542(a) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(a); Simko v. County of Allegheny, 869 A.2d 571 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Gilius v. Bd. of Supv., Fairview T.
green
2 sentences2007For example, in Gilius v. Board of Supervisors of Fairview Township, 122 Pa.Cmwlth. 371 , 552 A.2d 327 (1988), appeal denied, 523 Pa. 633 , 564 A.2d 1262 (1989), the court rejected an attempt by landowners to recover damages on a cause of action for breach of an implied warranty, reasoning as follows: These counts clearly sound in tort, because in essence they charge that the Board, acting through its agent, Mr. Hartman, was negligent in that the latter failed to perform a percolation test in a competent non-negligent manner. 2007For example, in Gilius v. Board of Supervisors of Fairview Township, 122 Pa.Cmwlth. 371 , 552 A.2d 327 (1988), appeal denied, 523 Pa. 633 , 564 A.2d 1262 (1989), the court rejected an attempt by landowners to recover damages on a cause of action for breach of an implied warranty, reasoning as follows: These counts clearly sound in tort, because in essence they charge that the Board, acting through its agent, Mr. Hartman, was negligent in that the latter failed to perform a percolation test in a competent non-negligent manner. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Tackett v. Pine Richland School District
green
1 sentence2002Tackett, 793 A.2d at 1024 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Kilgore v. City of Philadelphia
green
2 sentences1998Kilgore v. City of Philadelphia, 553 Pa. 22 , 717 A.2d 514 (1998). 15 . 1998Kilgore v. City of Philadelphia, 553 Pa. 22 , 717 A.2d 514 (1998). 15 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
J.R.W., Inc. v. Manchester Borough Council
green
1 sentence1995J.R.W., Inc. v. Manchester Borough Council, 148 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 238, 610 A.2d 1078 (1992). 1 Section 8542(a) of the Code, 42 Pa. C.S. § 8542(a), states that a local agency may be held liable for damages inflicted on a person or property if the injured party demonstrates both of the following: (1) That damages could have been recovered at common law or under a statute creating a cause of action if the injury were caused by a person not entitled to assert the defense of governmental immunity, and (2) that the injury falls into one of the exceptions to governmental immunity listed in Section | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Frank Genty v. Resolution Trust Corporation
green
1 sentence1994In finding the defense to be apparent from the face of Chester’s preliminary objections, the trial court conducted an examination of whether Chester was entitled to the defense of governmental immunity in this matter pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 8541. 10 That examination revealed municipalities to be immune from Federal RICO claims, Genty v. Resolution Trust Corp., 937 F.2d 899 (3rd Cir.1991), and that Chester is a local agency falling under the protection of governmental immunity pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 8541. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Favoroso v. Bristol Borough neutral | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| City of Philadelphia v. Gray green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Comyn v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Lancie v. Giles green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Guinn v. Alburtis Fire Co.
green
1 sentence1992In Guinn v. Alburtis Fire Co., 134 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 270, 577 A.2d 971 (1990), petition for allowance of appeal granted sub nom. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Newman v. Thorn green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Flagiello v. Pennsylvania Hospital green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Carroll v. County of York green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Dillon v. York City School District green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.