Case law

Commonwealth v. Brown

577 Pa. 315 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2004

The order of the Superior Court is vacated and the matter is remanded to the trial court pursuant to Commonwealth v.

Commonwealth v. Brown

389 Pa. Super. 66 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 1989

JOHNSON, Judge: The Commonwealth appeals the Order placing Timothy Brown on probation. … On October 11, 1988, a Philadelphia police officer observed Brown make two drug sales.

Brown v. Weaver

1 Sadler 458 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 1886

Brown v. Eastburn

351 Pa. Super. 479 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 1986

Robinson v. Robinson, 505 Pa. 226 , 478 A.2d 800 (1984). We therefore affirm the trial court’s order. … Smith v. Smith, 307 Pa.Super. 544 , 453 A.2d 1020, 1025 (1982).

Brown v. Candelora

555 Pa. 478 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 1999

Brown v. Levy

614 Pa. 459 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2012

Kelly v. Brown

20 Pa. 446 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 1853

Even if the materials had been charged to the contractor individually, it would have been competent to show that they were furnished on the credit of that particular building: Presbyterian Church v. … “Bor John Brown’s house” is as good a designation as the more tautological phrase of the Legislature. The judgment is reversed and a venire de novo awarded.

Brown v. Commonwealth

114 Pa. 335 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 1886

. — In the case of Lewis v. … A like ruling will be found in the case of Cochlin v. The Commonwealth, 11 W. N. C., 460.

Brown v. Seidel

153 Pa. 60 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 1893

As was said in Heinz v. Lutz, 146 Pa. 592 : “ It is not enough that there may be a possibility of deception. The offending label must be such that it is likely to deceive persons of ordinary intelligence.” … See Hoyt v. Hoyt, 29 W. N. C. 309; Heinz v. Lutz, supra, and other cases. The decree is affirmed and the appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellant.

Commonwealth v. Brown

138 Pa. 447 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 1891

They imply that the entry was accompanied with that terror and violence which constitute the offence: Commonwealth v. Shattuck, 4 Cush. 141 . … The indictment under consideration does not authorize an award of restitution, because there is no sufficient averment in it that the prosecutrix has an estate either of freehold or leasehold in the premises : Burd v.

Arrott v. Brown

6 Whart. 9 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 1840

In Harvey v. … Such is the principle of Harvey v.

Brown v. Gilmore

92 Pa. 40 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 1880

In Hines v. … But in Leon v. Galceran, 11 Wall. 188 , it was held that the state courts have jurisdiction in an action in personam.

Brown v. Bailey

159 Pa. 121 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1893

In Reynolds v. … Brown the property did not belong to him or become any part of his estate.

Commonwealth v. Brown

327 Pa. Super. 505 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 1984

Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 , 53 S.Ct. 55 , 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932). This right extends to everyone charged with an offense punishable by imprisonment, Argersinger v. … McCray v.

Drake v. Brown

68 Pa. 223 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 1871

Madeira, 1 Rawle 329 ; Humphreys v. Humphreys, 1 Yeates 427 ; Hunt v. Lithgow, Id. 24; De Haas v. Bunn, 2 Barr 337. The fact, therefore, that Daniel Y. … He must yield up the possession to Brown, the purchaser at sheriff’s sale. Judgment is therefore affirmed.

Gilpin v. Brown

268 Pa. 398 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 1920

There cannot be inquisitions upon it by parcels”: Stickles v. Oviatt, 212 Pa. 219 .

Brown v. Lamberton

2 Binn. 34 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 1809

But in the present instance, the plaintiff is named in the body of the words; William Brown played &c. … Brown the verdict should have been for the defendant.

Brown v. Kistler

190 Pa. 499 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 1899

Brown v. Henry

106 Pa. 262 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 1884

In view of this Act it was held in Lancaster v. Smith, 17 P. F. S., 427, that satisfaction is the act of the mortgagee, not of the recorder. … In Lancaster v. Smith, supra, the satisfaction was entered by virtue of a forged power of attorney.

Brown v. Person

617 Pa. 581 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2012