Pa. Cons. Stat. » 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. (JUDICIARY) / Chapter 51
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5110 (2026)

  Limited waiver of sovereign immunity (Repealed).

✓ current as of May 2026
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 5110.  Limited waiver of sovereign immunity (Repealed).

 

1980 Repeal.  Section 5110 was repealed October 5, 1980, P.L.693, No.142, effective in 60 days. The subject matter is now contained in Chapter 85 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 55 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2021 · leading case: Brungard v. HARTMAN, 405 A.2d 1089 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brungard v. HARTMAN, 405 A.2d 1089 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1979). · cites it 6× “§ 2310 and The Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. § 5110, in disposing of the preliminary objections.”
Gibson v. Commonwealth, 415 A.2d 80 (Pa. 1980). · cites it 4× “By preliminary objection, appellees moved to dismiss the actions on the ground that appellees were immune from suit under Section 2 of Act 152, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5110. [2] The Commonwealth Court granted the motion, holding that Act 152 applied to appellants' actions, that those…”
Mistecka v. Commonwealth, 408 A.2d 159 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1979). · cites it 6× “With respect to the central question of sovereign immunity, the plaintiffs and the Commonwealth are in agreement that the Act of September 28, 1978, P.”
Snyder v. Harmon, 562 A.2d 307 (Pa. 1989). · cites it 2× “In Mistecka , the plaintiffs contended that their cause of action against the Commonwealth arose pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5110(a)(4) when they were injured by rocks thrown from an overpass onto a Commonwealth highway.”
Tulewicz v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 606 A.2d 427 (Pa. 1992). · cites it 2× “42 Pa.C.S. § 5110 (repealed). Thus, when the two sections are read together, [7] it is apparent that the Act was intended to cover "Commonwealth agencies.”
Commonwealth v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., 8 A.3d 267 (Pa. 2010). · cites it 2× “The Attorney General shall approve all settlements over such maximum amounts as he shall determine arising out of claims brought against the Commonwealth pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5110. 71 P.S. § 732-204(c). [7] Mr.”
Zimmerman v. O'BANNON, 442 A.2d 674 (Pa. 1982). · cites it 2× “The Attorney General shall approve all settlements over such maximum amounts as he shall determine arising out of claims brought against the Commonwealth pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5110.”
Est. of Armstrong v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 46 Pa. Commw. 33 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1979). · cites it 3× “§2310); that “existing common law defenses are retained” (42 Pa. C.S. §5110(b)); and *40 I would, therefore, sustain the preliminary objections of the individual Board members and dismiss the action as to them.”
Preteroti v. Uniservice, Inc., 413 A.2d 787 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1980). · cites it 6× “The question is whether the liability asserted falls within one of the eight enumerated instances in Section 5110 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. § 5110 (Act 152), as to which the legislature has granted limited waiver of immunity.”
Wyke v. Ward, 474 A.2d 375 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1984). · cites it 2× “At the time of this accident, Section 5110(a)(4) of the Judicial Code, 2 42 Pa. C. S. §5110(a) (4), provided : (a) [A]n action shall not be barred and the defense of sovereign immunity shall not be raised to claims for: (4) Commonwealth real estate, highways and sidewalks —…”
Lutzko v. Mikris, Inc., 410 A.2d 370 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1979). · cites it 2× “Section 5110 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. §5110, provides eight exceptional situations under which the Commonwealth may be subject to suit.”
Robson v. Penn Hills Sch. Dist., 437 A.2d 1273 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1981). “In Mistecha, the plaintiffs sued the Commonwealth, contending that the Commonwealth’s failure to prevent recurring incidents of rock throwing onto a state highway constituted a “dangerous condition” of Commonwealth real estate and therefore fell within one of the immunity…”
Show all 55 citing cases →
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5110(a) — 17 cases
Brungard v. HARTMAN, 405 A.2d 1089 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1979). “§ 2310 and The Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. § 5110, in disposing of the preliminary objections.”
Mistecka v. Commonwealth, 408 A.2d 159 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1979). “With respect to the central question of sovereign immunity, the plaintiffs and the Commonwealth are in agreement that the Act of September 28, 1978, P.”
Shakoor v. Commonwealth, 440 A.2d 647 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1981).
Wyke v. Ward, 474 A.2d 375 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1984). “At the time of this accident, Section 5110(a)(4) of the Judicial Code, 2 42 Pa. C. S. §5110(a) (4), provided : (a) [A]n action shall not be barred and the defense of sovereign immunity shall not be raised to claims for: (4) Commonwealth real estate, highways and sidewalks —…”
Nagle v. Pennsylvania Ins. Dep't, 406 A.2d 1229 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1979).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5110(a)(1) — 2 cases
Consol. Rail Corp. v. Ingersoll-Rand Corp., 408 A.2d 183 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1979).
Nichols v. Hatch, 31 Pa. D. & C.3d 307 (1984).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5110(a)(3) — 1 case
Manuella v. Sorgenfrei, 405 A.2d 1131 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1979).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5110(a)(4) — 8 cases
Snyder v. Harmon, 562 A.2d 307 (Pa. 1989). “In Mistecka , the plaintiffs contended that their cause of action against the Commonwealth arose pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5110(a)(4) when they were injured by rocks thrown from an overpass onto a Commonwealth highway.”
Mistecka v. Commonwealth, 408 A.2d 159 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1979). “With respect to the central question of sovereign immunity, the plaintiffs and the Commonwealth are in agreement that the Act of September 28, 1978, P.”
Wyke v. Ward, 474 A.2d 375 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1984). “At the time of this accident, Section 5110(a)(4) of the Judicial Code, 2 42 Pa. C. S. §5110(a) (4), provided : (a) [A]n action shall not be barred and the defense of sovereign immunity shall not be raised to claims for: (4) Commonwealth real estate, highways and sidewalks —…”
Preteroti v. Uniservice, Inc., 413 A.2d 787 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1980). “The question is whether the liability asserted falls within one of the eight enumerated instances in Section 5110 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. § 5110 (Act 152), as to which the legislature has granted limited waiver of immunity.”
Dorsch v. Butler Area Sch. Dist., 525 A.2d 17 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5110(a)(7) — 2 cases
Savage v. Com. of Pennsylvania, 475 F. Supp. 524 (E.D. Pa. 1979).
Garrettson v. Commonwealth, 405 A.2d 1146 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1979).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5110(b) — 3 cases
Brungard v. HARTMAN, 405 A.2d 1089 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1979). “§ 2310 and The Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. § 5110, in disposing of the preliminary objections.”
Est. of Armstrong v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 46 Pa. Commw. 33 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1979). “§2310); that “existing common law defenses are retained” (42 Pa. C.S. §5110(b)); and *40 I would, therefore, sustain the preliminary objections of the individual Board members and dismiss the action as to them.”
State Pub. Sch. Bldg. Auth. v. W. M. Anderson Co., 410 A.2d 1329 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1980).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5110(b)(1) — 1 case
Est. of Armstrong v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 46 Pa. Commw. 33 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1979). “§2310); that “existing common law defenses are retained” (42 Pa. C.S. §5110(b)); and *40 I would, therefore, sustain the preliminary objections of the individual Board members and dismiss the action as to them.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5110(c) — 1 case
Powers v. Goodwin, 291 S.E.2d 466 (W. Va. 1982).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.