Case law

Board of Education of the School District v. Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Local No. 3

464 Pa. 92 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 1975

Board of Education, City of Englewood v. Englewood Teachers Ass’n, 64 N.J. 1 , 311 A.2d 729 (1973); Board of Education of Union Free School District # 3 v. … Danville Board of School Directors v.

Gillespie v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.

179 A.3d 451 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 2018

The Commonwealth Court's decision affirming the order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED to the Commonwealth Court to determine whether this Court's decision in Protz v.

Baton Coal Company Appeal

365 Pa. 519 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1950

Hays’s Appeal, 51 Pa. 58 ; Brown’s Appeal, 68 Pa. 53 ; Bowers’s Appeal, 84 Pa. 311 ; Myers’s Estate. Myers’s Appeal, 192 Pa. 458 , 43 A. 998 ; Rosenberger v. … Such duty, under the statute, rested exclusively with the school board.

Lincoln Philadelphia Realty Associates I v. Board of Revision of Taxes of Philadelphia

729 A.2d 1119 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 1999

Cimaszewski v. Bd. of Probation and Parole

582 Pa. 27 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2005

Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 28 , 101 S.Ct. 960 , 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981), citing Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 71 U.S. 277, 326 , 18 L.Ed. 356 (1866); see also Collins v. … In Winklespecht v. Pa.

In the Interest of Jermaine

399 Pa. Super. 503 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 1990

At that point I opened the bag and I found a brown paper bag. … Commonwealth v. Brown, 388 Pa.Super. 187, 190 , 565 A.2d 177, 178 (1989). See also: Terry v. Ohio, supra at 34 , 88 S.Ct. at 1886 , 20 L.Ed.2d at 913 (White, J. concurring); Commonwealth v.

Ambridge Borough v. Philadelphia Co.

283 Pa. 5 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 1925

To sustain its position that the Philadelphia Company is liable for the repaving of the streets, appellant relies upon such cases as Pennsylvania Canal Co. v. Brown, 235 Fed. 669 ; Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. … S. 498 ; United States v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 220 U. S. 257 ; Kendall v. Klapperthal Co., 202 Pa. 596 ; S. G. V. Co. v. S. G. V. Co., 264 Pa. 265 ; Hunter v.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Wrona

589 Pa. 337 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2006

It is the Board’s opinion that the general public is well-served to have Respondent removed from the roll of active attorneys. The Board recommends that Respondent be disbarred. V. … Brown, Board Member March 31, 2006 Board Member McLaughlin did not participate in the decision of this matter. 1 .

Commonwealth v. Bowditch

217 Pa. 527 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1907

Brown, 210 Pa. 29 ; Melvin v. Summerville, 210 Pa. 41 . … Meanor, 161 Pa. 292 ; Commonwealth v. Stevens, 168 Pa. 582 ; Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 200 Pa. 509 .

Protect PT v. Penn Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd.

210 A.3d 269 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 21, 2019

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Harris

69 Pa. D. & C.4th 440 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 2004

For these reasons the board recommends that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day. V. … Board Member Peck recused in this matter, and Board Member Brown did not participate in the March 10,2004 adjudication.

Fiscus v. Fiscus

272 Pa. 326 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 1922

Carney, 196 Pa. 34 , prevails (also see Compton v. Hoffman, 265 Pa. 257, 263 ; Neureuter v. … the transaction rests upon the defendant, that burden has been fairly met and overcome by the evidence which, in our opinion, is entirely sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the transaction was fair, open and above board

Gramigna v. Board of Ministerial Pensions & Relief of United Presbyterian Church of North America

330 Pa. 335 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 1938

“Where one of two innocent persons must suffer loss by reason of the fraud of another, the loss must fall on him by whose act the wrongdoer has been enabled to commit the fraud”: Mielcuszny v. Rosol, 317 Pa. 91, 96 .

Drueding v. Tradesmens National Bank & Trust Co.

319 Pa. 144 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 1935

In addition, it appears that one of the depositing- bondholders was a member of the board of directors of the Company when the agreement came up for action by the board before it *154 was adopted and was executed; he voted … In addition, Behr, a witness, also a member of the board of directors, testified that while he held neither stock nor bonds, he was probably “put on the board as a watch dog for the bondholders.”

Commonwealth v. Leninsky

360 Pa. Super. 49 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1986

In Brown v. … See Brown v. Texas, supra; Commonwealth v. Swanger, supra. A.

In re Shapiro

80 Pa. D. & C.4th 192 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2006

law necessary to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and has shown that his resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the integrity of the bar nor subversive of the public interest. *201 V. … Board Member Brown recused. Board Members Newman and Nordenberg did not participate in the September 12, 2005 adjudication.

Temple University of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

565 Pa. 178 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 21, 2001

See Dept. of Navy v. … See id. at 202 (citing Simpson v.

Pardee v. Harwood Electric Co.

262 Pa. 68 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 1918

:” per opinion of present Chief Justice Brown in Goetz’s Est. … See Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Co., 212 U. S. 1 ; People ex rel. Jamaica W. S. Co. v. Tax Comrs., 196 N. Y. 39 ; Park v. Grant Locomotive Works, 40 N. J. Eq. 115, 120; *74 Mobile & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Tenn., 153 U.

Garrisonv. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole

588 Pa. 312 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2006

Dwight v. Eckert

117 Pa. 490 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 1888

to be made; for until he knows that, the seller could not put the goods on board: Armitage v. … Brown, 38 How. P. 444; Rodgers v. Van Hoesen, 12 Johns. 221 ; Benj. on Sales, 1023.