SUBCHAPTER B
ACTIONS AGAINST COMMONWEALTH PARTIES
Sec.
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
8521. Sovereign immunity generally.
8522. Exceptions to sovereign immunity.
8523. Venue and process.
8524. Defenses.
8525. Legal assistance.
8526. Counterclaim by the Commonwealth.
8527. Indemnity relating to inmate health care.
LIMITATIONS ON DAMAGES
8528. Limitations on damages.
References in Repealed Statute. Section 221(j) of Act 142 of 1980 provided that references in the act of September
28, 1978, P.L.788, No.152, to "this act" and to "42 Pa.C.S. § 5110" shall be deemed
to be references to Subchapter B.
Cross References. Subchapter B is referred to in sections 931, 7395 of this title; sections 17131, 17162
of Title 16 (Counties); section 6018 of Title 64 (Public Authorities and Quasi-Public
Corporations).
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
§ 8521. Sovereign immunity generally.
(a) General rule.--Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, no provision of this title shall
constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity for the purpose of 1 Pa.C.S. § 2310 (relating
to sovereign immunity reaffirmed; specific waiver) or otherwise.
(b) Federal courts.--Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be construed to waive the immunity of the
Commonwealth from suit in Federal courts guaranteed by the Eleventh Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States.
Cross References. Section 8521 is referred to in sections 17312, 17342 of Title 16 (Counties); section
1711 of Title 74 (Transportation); section 6109 of Title 75 (Vehicles).
Notes of Decisions
Kmonk-Sullivan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 788 A.2d 955 (Pa. 2001).
· cites it 4× “The other statutes relevant to the present matter relate to sovereign immunity (42 Pa.C.S. § 8521) and the extent to which the Commonwealth has waived it (42 Pa.”
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984).
· cites it 2× “" 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8521 (b) (1980). We also do not agree with respondents that the presence of the United States as a plaintiff in this case removes the Eleventh Amendment from consideration.”
Jones v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 772 A.2d 435 (Pa. 2001).
· cites it 4× “§ 8522(b)(4), the Sovereign Immunity Act's real estate exception, and that SEPTA is immune from Jones' suit under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8521. Accordingly, we affirm the Commonwealth Court's order, affirming the trial court's order granting SEPTA's motion for summary judgment.”
Cagey, J., Aplt. v. PennDOT, 179 A.3d 458 (Pa. 2018).
· cites it 3× “Pursuant to the plain language of the Sovereign Immunity Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8521 - 8528 (the "Act"), we find that the General Assembly has waived PennDOT's immunity as a bar to damages caused by dangerous guardrails affixed to Commonwealth real estate.”
Allen v. Mellinger, 784 A.2d 762 (Pa. 2001).
· cites it 6× “238) and the statutory provisions governing sovereign immunity (42 Pa.C.S. § 8521 et seq.) and joint and several liability (42 Pa.”
Just., S., Aplt. v. Trooper Lombardo, 208 A.3d 1057 (Pa. 2019).
· cites it 2× “§ 2310 ; 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8521 -22. In this intentional tort action, a jury found that Pennsylvania State Police ("PSP") Trooper Joseph Lombardo ("Trooper Lombardo") was acting outside the scope of his employment based on his use of force in an incident following a routine traffic…”
Acosta v. Democratic City Comm., 288 F. Supp. 3d 597 (E.D. Pa. 2018).
· cites it 3× “3d at 195 ); see 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8521 (b) ("Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be construed to waive the immunity of the Commonwealth from suit in Federal courts guaranteed by the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
Betts v. New Castle Youth Dev. Ctr., 621 F.3d 249 (3rd Cir. 2010).
“That YDC did not have a Board of Trustees in place for at least two years prior to the time of Betts's accident does not negate that it is a "state institution” under § 301. By law, the Board of Trustees is a “departmental advisory board” within the DPW, 62 Pa.”
Urella v. Pennsylvania State Troopers Ass'n, 628 F. Supp. 2d 600 (E.D. Pa. 2008).
· cites it 3× “See 42 Pa.C.S. § 8521(b). 4 Thus, neither of the relevant exceptions to sovereign immunity apply and plaintiffs § 1983 claims against the Commonwealth are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.”
Sherk v. Cnty. of Dauphin, 614 A.2d 226 (Pa. 1992).
· cites it 6× “Section 8521 (42 Pa.C.S. § 8521) provides: "Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, no provision of this title shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity for the purposes of 1 Pa.”
Brewington, S. v. Phila. Sch. Dist., Aplt., 199 A.3d 348 (Pa. 2018).
“The wording of the cognate real property exception to the Sovereign Immunity Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8521 - 8527, highlights Mascaro 's jurisprudential infirmity.”
Brooks v. Beard, 167 F. App'x 923 (3rd Cir. 2006).
“” 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 8521(b). Therefore, Brooks’s attempt to invoke the real estate exception is misplaced in this lawsuit.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8521(6) — 3 cases
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8521(a) — 50 cases
Jones v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 772 A.2d 435 (Pa. 2001).
“§ 8522(b)(4), the Sovereign Immunity Act's real estate exception, and that SEPTA is immune from Jones' suit under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8521. Accordingly, we affirm the Commonwealth Court's order, affirming the trial court's order granting SEPTA's motion for summary judgment.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8521(b) — 114 cases
Betts v. New Castle Youth Dev. Ctr., 621 F.3d 249 (3rd Cir. 2010).
“That YDC did not have a Board of Trustees in place for at least two years prior to the time of Betts's accident does not negate that it is a "state institution” under § 301. By law, the Board of Trustees is a “departmental advisory board” within the DPW, 62 Pa.”
Urella v. Pennsylvania State Troopers Ass'n, 628 F. Supp. 2d 600 (E.D. Pa. 2008).
“See 42 Pa.C.S. § 8521(b). 4 Thus, neither of the relevant exceptions to sovereign immunity apply and plaintiffs § 1983 claims against the Commonwealth are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.”
Brooks v. Beard, 167 F. App'x 923 (3rd Cir. 2006).
“” 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 8521(b). Therefore, Brooks’s attempt to invoke the real estate exception is misplaced in this lawsuit.”
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.