Pyeritz v. Commonwealth

969 A.2d 1183, 600 Pa. 640, 2009 Pa. LEXIS 671
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 24, 2009·No. 487 WAL 2008·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

And now, this 24th day of April, 2009, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, which we have rephrased for clarity, are:

(1) Whether the personal property exception to state sovereign immunity, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8522(b)(3), applies only if *641 the property in question causes the plaintiffs injuries, or does it suffice that plaintiffs injuries are caused by the Commonwealth’s care, custody, or control of the property?
(2) Whether genuine issues of material fact exist which would preclude the entry of summary judgment?
(3) Whether the State Police breached an implied contract for bailment of evidence which was Petitioners’ personal property, thus subjecting the State Police to liability if the evidence was subsequently negligently destroyed?
(4) Whether Pennsylvania recognizes, and if so whether Petitioners have alleged, a cause of action for negligent spoliation of evidence?

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pyeritz v. Commonwealth, 969 A.2d 1183, 600 Pa. 640, 2009 Pa. LEXIS 671 (Pa. 2009).

969 A.2d 1183 (Pyeritz v. Commonwealth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pyeritz v. Commonwealth
32 A.3d 687 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2011)
Paluch v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department Corrections
442 F. App'x 690 (Third Circuit, 2011)