Blocker v. City of Philadelphia

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that chattel not attached to realty — there, a set of bleachers that collapsed — remains personalty for purposes of the real property exception to governmental immunity
• holding that chattel not attached to realty - there, a set of bleachers that collapsed - remains personalty for purposes of the real property exception to governmental immunity
• holding that the “bleacher was . . . personalty, and any negligent maintenance of it did not fall within the real property exception to immunity”
• finding that a bleacher was not a “fixture” of real property for purposes of Philadelphia’s immunity under the Tort Claims Act3 because “it rested on, but was not attached to, the ground”
• concert bleachers, which could be easily removed, were not fixtures such that similar provision of Tort Claims Act did not waive city’s immunity
• rejecting a claim for negligent maintenance of the bleachers

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).