Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
1.46s
Handy v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
619 Pa. 214 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2013
Cited 0 timesPublishedGould v. Zoning Hearing Board of Bristol Borough
616 Pa. 366 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 2012
Cited 0 timesPublishedMartin v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
798 A.2d 1274 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 2002
2002, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is granted and the case is remanded to the Workers’ Compensation Judge to consider whether Claimant’s claim petition was timely filed based on this Court’s decision in Schreffler v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedCity of Pittsburgh v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
81 A.3d 882 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 2013
, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, the order of the Commonwealth Court is VACATED, and the matter is remanded for reconsideration in light of City of Pittsburgh and UPMC Benefit Management Services, Inc. v. … Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Robinson), — Pa. -, 67 A.3d 1194 (2013).
Cited 1 timesPublishedJohnson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
169 A.3d 593 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2017
ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 26th day of June, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, the order of the Commonwealth Court is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for reconsideration in light of Pittman v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedEasley v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
169 A.3d 588 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 2017
this 21st day of June, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED to the Commonwealth Court for reconsideration in light of Pittman v. … Pennsylvania Board of Probation *589 and Parole, 159 A.3d 466 , 2017 WL 1489047 (Pa. filed April 26,2017).
Cited 0 timesPublishedWilliams v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
169 A.3d 578 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 2017
The Order of the Commonwealth Court is VACATED and this matter is REMANDED to the Commonwealth Court for reconsideration of its decision in light of Pittman v. … Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 159 A.3d 466 , 2017 WL 1489047 (Pa. 2017).
Cited 0 timesPublishedWilliams v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
169 A.3d 578 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 2017
The Order of the Commonwealth Court is VACATED and this matter is REMANDED to the Commonwealth Court for reconsideration of its decision in light of Pittman v. … Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 159 A.3d 466 , 2017 WL 1489047 (Pa. 2017).
Cited 0 timesPublishedWistuk v. Lower Mt. Bethel Township Zoning Hearing Board
592 Pa. 419 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 2007
In this regard, the common pleas court relied on Hogan, Lepore Hogan v. … for purposes of Section 908(9)); see also Gaster v.
Cited 16 timesPublishedJohnson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
169 A.3d 593 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2017
ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 26th day of June, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, the order of the Commonwealth Court is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for reconsideration in light of Pittman v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTalkish v. Zoning Hearing Board
562 Pa. 631 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 2000
ORDER PER CURIAM: AND NOW, this 28th day of August, 2000, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, limited to the following issue: Whether this Court’s holding in Hertzberg v. … Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, 554 Pa. 249 , 721 A.2d 43 (1998), which applied a relaxed evidentiary standard for dimensional variances, overrules the requirement that an applicant for a variance present
Cited 0 timesPublishedSharpe v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
169 A.3d 589 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 2017
this 21st day of June, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED to the Commonwealth Court for reconsideration in light of Pittman v. … Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 159 A.3d 466 , 2017 WL 1489047 (Pa. filed April 26, 2017).
Cited 0 timesPublishedMarshal v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
169 A.3d 580 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 2017
ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 20th day of June, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, the order of the Commonwealth Court is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for reconsideration in light of Pittman v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMarshal v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
169 A.3d 580 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 2017
ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 20th day of June, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, the order of the Commonwealth Court is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for reconsideration in light of Pittman v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMcGriff v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole
615 Pa. 146 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2012
Cited 0 timesPublishedTECH ONE ASSOCIATES v. Board of Property Assessment
607 Pa. 323 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 2010
Cited 1 timesPublishedTyler v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole
38 A.3d 820 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2012
38 A.3d 820 (2012) Michael TYLER, Appellant v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, and Department of Corrections Community Corrections Center, Appellees.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTilley v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
601 Pa. 100 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 14, 2009
Cited 1 timesPublishedLUSIK v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole
615 Pa. 453 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 7, 2012
Cited 0 timesPublishedEidem v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
731 A.2d 128 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 1999
in finding that the referral letter did not provide sufficient notice of a job position, where employee had previously been employed in that position, in order to satisfy employer’s burden of proof pursuant to Kachinski v.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna