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.
§ 8524. Defenses.
The following common law defenses are available:
(1) An official of a Commonwealth agency, or a member of the General Assembly or the judiciary
may assert on his own behalf, or the Commonwealth may assert on his behalf, defenses
which have heretofore been available to such officials.
(2) An employee of a Commonwealth agency, or a member of the General Assembly or of the
judiciary may assert on his own behalf, or the Commonwealth may assert on his behalf,
the defense that the employee was acting pursuant to a duty required by a statute
or statutorily authorized regulation.
(3) An employee of a Commonwealth agency, or a member of the General Assembly or of the
judiciary may assert on his own behalf, or the Commonwealth may assert on his behalf,
the defense that the act was within the discretion granted to the employee by statute
or statutorily authorized regulation.
Cross References. Section 8524 is referred to in sections 17312, 17342 of Title 16 (Counties); section
1711 of Title 74 (Transportation).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case:
Medina v. State, 35 P.3d 443 (Colo. 2001).
Medina v. State, 35 P.3d 443 (Colo. 2001).
“265(c) (1999) (immunity for discretionary functions); 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 8524(3) (West 1998) (immunity for discretionary functions); S$.”
Hall v. Acme Markets, Inc., 532 A.2d 894 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987).
“Official Immunity 42 Pa. C. S. §8524(1) states, in pertinent part, that “[a]n official of a Commonwealth agency .”
Yakowicz v. McDermott, 548 A.2d 1330 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1988).
“Appellant asserts that at the time he wrote the memo he was a high public official acting within the scope of his duties and therefore entitled to assert the common law defense of “absolute privilege.”
Weinstein v. Bullick, 827 F. Supp. 1193 (E.D. Pa. 1993).
“10 In Yakowicz , the Commonwealth Court held that the common law absolute privilege for high public officials is made available to Commonwealth officials by 42 Pa.C.S. § 8524(1), which provides that “[a]n official of a Commonwealth agency .”
Ziccardi v. Commonwealth, 527 A.2d 183 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987).
“Ziccardis complaint should be dismissed against the Secretary of General Services' because the alleged wrongs fall within the scope of his official immunity.”
Pa. State Police v. HOWARD ET UX., 536 A.2d 476 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1988).
· cites it 2× “The state police further allege that the use of the siren falls within the provision of 42 Pa. C. S. §8524 governing common law defenses applicable in a sovereign immunity situation.”
Commonwealth v. Howard, 536 A.2d 476 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1988).
· cites it 2× “The state police further allege that the use of the siren falls within the provision of 42 Pa. C. S. §8524 governing common law defenses applicable in a sovereign immunity situation.”
T.B. Ellington v. Hon. Jennifer H. Sibum (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017).
“8 See also 42 Pa. C.S. § 8524. 4 By December 15, 2015, County Defendants still had not filed an entry of appearance or a response to Ellington’s complaint.”
DiNicola v. DiPaolo, 36 Pa. D. & C.3d 546 (1982).
“42 Pa. C.S. §8524 provides, in part, that: “An official of a Commonwealth agency, or a member of the General Assembly or the judiciary may assert on his own behalf, or the Commonwealth may assert on his behalf, defenses which have heretofore been available to such officials.”
42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8524(1): 3 cases
Hall v. Acme Markets, Inc., 532 A.2d 894 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987).
“Official Immunity 42 Pa. C. S. §8524(1) states, in pertinent part, that “[a]n official of a Commonwealth agency .”
Weinstein v. Bullick, 827 F. Supp. 1193 (E.D. Pa. 1993).
“10 In Yakowicz , the Commonwealth Court held that the common law absolute privilege for high public officials is made available to Commonwealth officials by 42 Pa.C.S. § 8524(1), which provides that “[a]n official of a Commonwealth agency .”
42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8524(3): 2 cases
Medina v. State, 35 P.3d 443 (Colo. 2001).
“265(c) (1999) (immunity for discretionary functions); 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 8524(3) (West 1998) (immunity for discretionary functions); S$.”
Ziccardi v. Commonwealth, 527 A.2d 183 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987).
“Ziccardis complaint should be dismissed against the Secretary of General Services' because the alleged wrongs fall within the scope of his official immunity.”
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.