Laney v. City of Pittsburgh
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM ORDER
COHILL, Chief Judge.
Presently before us are a motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Port Authority of Allegheny County (“PATCO”) and Bus Driver Roe, and a supplemental motion for summary judgment filed by the City of Pittsburgh (“City”). We granted a previous motion for summary judgment on behalf of the City as to state law claims against it at Count 2, because of immunity extended to the City under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8541. The City’s earlier motion was denied as to the federal claim lodged against it at Count 3 of the complaint. At present, the following claims remain…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Mascaro v. Youth Study CenterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Morris v. MusserCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- Scott v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1968
- City of Philadelphia v. LoveCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
- Pedretti v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Cooper v. MerrillDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1990
- Bazemore v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation AuthorityCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Schwartz v. County of MontgomeryDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1994
- Gray v. Erie Metropolitan Transit Authority, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Erie County1989