Tork-Hiis v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the Commonwealth and its agencies “are distinct legal entities,” such that substituting one for the other in a complaint “amounts to the addition of a new party”
• holding that the Commonwealth and its agencies “are distinct legal entities,” such that substituting one for the other in a complaint “amounts to the addition of a new party”
• observing that the Commonwealth and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources are distinct legal entities
• construing, inter alia, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8501, in resolving whether party could substitute Commonwealth agency in lieu of Commonwealth in civil action
• “Additionally, the party substitutions in both Jacob’s and Powell constituted, for all practical purposes, one and the same legal entity in each case. The same cannot be said for the commonwealth and any of its agencies.” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).