Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filterspa

10,000+ results

0.55s

  • McKnight Shopping Center, Inc. v. Board of Property Assessment

    417 Pa. 234 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 1965

    Worth Park Village, Inc. v. Board of Property Assessments, Appeals and Review, 408 Pa. 433 , 184 A. 2d 253 (1962). Actual value means market value. … Township of Hillsborough v. Cromwell, 326 U.S. 620 (1946). See Shoppers’ World Inc. v. Framingham, Mass. (1965).

    Cited 112 timesPublished
  • Miller v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole

    959 A.2d 297 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2008

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Donnelly v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

    619 Pa. 479 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 2013

    AND NOW, this 19th day of April 2013, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, the Commonwealth Court’s decision is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED for reconsideration in light of Diehl v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Cranberry Park Associates v. Cranberry Township Zoning Hearing Board

    561 Pa. 456 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 18, 2000

    Commonwealth v. Ashenfelder, 413 Pa. 517, 520 , *460 198 A.2d 514, 515 (1964). … See Commonwealth v.

    Superseded by statute, as recognized in Schadler v. Zoning Hearing BoardCited 36 timesPublished
  • Constructo Temps, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

    596 Pa. 602 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 30, 2008

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Harris v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole

    968 A.2d 763 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 2009

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Whalen, R. v. Public School Empl Ret Board, Pet

    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 10, 2021

    Petitioner : Petition for Allowance of Appeal : from the Order of the : Commonwealth Court v … (2) Did the Commonwealth Court apply the wrong standard of review to the Public School Employees’ Retirement Board’s adjudication by not affording the appropriate deference to the Board’s interpretation of the

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Shovel Transfer & Storage, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board

    559 Pa. 56 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 1999

    The Board held that the PLCB conditioned the formation of the contract on the signatures of the Budget Secretary and the Comptroller pursuant to Franklin Interiors v. … Central Transportation, Inc. v. Board of Assessment Appeals of Cambria County, 490 Pa. 486 , 417 A.2d 144 (1980).

    Cited 109 timesPublished
  • Constructo Temps, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

    947 A.2d 724 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 30, 2008

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. Bernard S. Pincus Co.

    479 Pa. 286 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 1978

    See Hilt v. Rosyln Volunteer Fire Co., supra; Panther Valley School Dist. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 3 Pa.Cmwlth. 178 , 318 A.2d 403 (1974); Billick v. … See, Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board v. Bernard S. Pincus Company, 24 Pa.Cmwlth. 655 , 357 A.2d 707 (1976); Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board v.

    Cited 37 timesPublished
  • Vepco Construction Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

    510 Pa. 279 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 1986

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Akers v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole

    600 Pa. 632 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 2009

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Landmark Constructors, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Costello)

    560 Pa. 618 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 2000

    Joseph Costello (Costello) appeals from the Order of the Commonwealth Court, which vacated a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board) and reinstated the Board’s initial decision in which the Board modified … The Commonwealth Court vacated the second decision of the Board and reinstated the initial decision of the Board to suspend Costello’s benefits.

    Cited 40 timesPublished
  • Barclay White Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

    356 Pa. 43 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 27, 1946

    L. & I., etc., v. Unemplmnt. Comp. Bd., 148 Pa. … In Chambers v. Owens-A.-K.

    Cited 64 timesPublished
  • Bevilacqua v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole

    600 Pa. 374 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2009

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Barber v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole

    598 Pa. 380 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 2008

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Westinghouse Electric Corp./CBS v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

    883 A.2d 579 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2005

    The Board based this decision upon the tolling provision of Section 315, 77 P.S. § 602, due to payment by the Employer of Claimant’s psychiatric expenses until mid-1998, relying on Levine v. … . *592 In Drake v.

    Cited 41 timesPublished
  • Stuckley v. Zoning Hearing Board of Newtown Township

    614 Pa. 690 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2012

    (3) Where a landowner challenges the substantive and procedural validity of a land use ordinance ... before the zoning hearing board and, before the board has conclud *691 ed its hearings, settles and withdraws his challenge … , do other landowners who participated [as parties to] the hearing, but who failed to file their own challenge to the validity of the now repealed ordinance, have the right to compel the zoning board or the courts to continue

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • St. Joe Container Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

    534 Pa. 347 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 1, 1993

    Court in Kachinski v. … Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Vepco Construction Co.), 516 Pa. 240 , 532 A.2d 374 (1987), as expanded upon by the Commonwealth Court through its decision in Fledderman v.

    Cited 26 timesPublished
  • Bilbar Construction Co. v. Easttown Township Board of Adjustment

    393 Pa. 62 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 2, 1958

    See Gratton v. Conte, 364 Pa. 578, 584 . Nor is there any evidence that the action of the Supervisors in establishing those regulations, or of the Board in its decision, was arbitrary or capricious.” … Philadelphia School District Board of Education, 376 Pa. 428, 431 , 103 A. 2d 769 ; Flynn v.

    Cited 124 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.