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.
§ 8525. Legal assistance.
When an action is brought under this subchapter against an employee of the Commonwealth
government, and it is alleged that the act of the employee which gave rise to the
claim was within the scope of the office or duties of the employee, the Commonwealth
through the Attorney General shall defend the action, unless the Attorney General
determines that the act did not occur within the scope of the office or duties of
the employee. In the latter case, if it is subsequently determined that the act occurred
within the scope of the office or duties of the employee, the Commonwealth shall reimburse
the employee for the expense of his legal defense in such amounts as shall be determined
to be reasonable by the court. If an action is brought against a Commonwealth government
employee for damages on account of injury to a person or property and it is not alleged
that the act of the employee which gave rise to the claim was within the scope of
his office or duties, and he successfully defends the action on the basis that the
act was within the scope of his office or duties, and he has given prior notice to
the Attorney General and the Attorney General has refused to defend the action, he
shall likewise be entitled to the reasonable expenses of the defense.
Cross References. Section 8525 is referred to in sections 17131, 17133, 17162, 17312, 17342 of Title
16 (Counties); sections 6006, 6018 of Title 64 (Public Authorities and Quasi-Public
Corporations); sections 1711, 1722 of Title 74 (Transportation).
Notes of Decisions
Balshy v. Pennsylvania State Police, 988 A.2d 813 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 6× “In our order of October 27, 2009, we directed the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing whether “42 Pa. C.S. § 8525 vests original jurisdiction in a ‘court’ to determine whether the act of a state employee seeking indemnification and/or costs of legal defense is within…”
Irizarry v. Off. of Gen. Couns., 934 A.2d 143 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 3× “On May 2, 2000, Irizarry, through counsel, provided notice to the Office of Attorney General under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8525 that service of a complaint had been made on Irizarry and requested that the Office of Attorney General defend Irizarry in the civil action.”
United States ex rel. Budike v. Peco Energy, 897 F. Supp. 2d 300 (E.D. Pa. 2012).
· cites it 2× “Notwithstanding the provisions of 42 Pa. C.S. § 8525 (relating to legal assistance), the authority, through its legal counsel, shall defend actions brought against the authority, or its members, officers, officials and employees when acting within the scope of their official…”
Reaves v. Knauer, 979 A.2d 404 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009).
“42 Pa. C.S. § 8525. As a result of Plaintiffs failure to serve the Attorney General with the November 2005 complaint, the Attorney General had no notice of Plaintiffs lawsuit and his corresponding duty to defend the Commonwealth parties.”
Powell v. Drumheller, 621 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1993).
“42 Pa.C.S. § 8525. LaFrankie v. Miklich, 152 Pa.”
Rosenwald v. Barbieri, 456 A.2d 677 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1983).
· cites it 2× “The Petitioner and the Association in their briefs in opposition to the Attorney General’s preliminary objection, state that Section 8525 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C. S. §8525, provides for the legal representation requested of the Attorney General.”
Durham v. United States, 9 F. Supp. 2d 503 (M.D. Penn. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Furthermore, the Commonwealth argues that Officer Ortalano is a “Commonwealth party” and that he is also entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity whether sued in his official or individual capacities because the Commonwealth has elected to indemnify him pursuant to 42…”
Flagg v. State Sys. of Higher Educ., 904 A.2d 1004 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006).
“42 Pa.C.S. § 8525 provides that the Commonwealth is required to defend or reimburse an employee for the defense of any action arising out of the course of his employment.”
Richter v. Shelby Cnty., 745 N.W.2d 505 (Iowa 2008).
“36-366 (2007); 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 8525 (2007); Utah Stat.”
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.