Case law

Hainds v. Commonwealth

520 Pa. 295 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 1989

The Order of Commonwealth Court is reversed, and the case is remanded to Commonwealth Court for consideration of the merits of petitioner’s appeal nunc pro tunc from the decision of the respondent, Pennsylvania Board of Probation

Fellows v. Loomis

170 Pa. 415 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 1895

This would have been the rule if the professional relation had not existed: Wheeler v. Hughes, 1 Dall. 23 ; Keagy v. The Commonwealth, 43 Pa. 70 ; Horstman v. Gerker, 49 Pa. *423 282 ; Earnest v. Hoskins, 100 Pa. 551 . … of the circumstances just referred to, to be treated as a purchaser with notice of the trust existing between Brown and Fellows, and as taking title *424 subject to it: Smith v.

Spring Garden Civic Ass'n v. Zoning Hearing Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia

649 A.2d 657 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 4, 1994

ORDER PER CURIAM: The Joint Motion to Vacate the Orders of the Commonwealth Court, 151 Pa.Cmwlth. 413 , 617 A.2d 61 , Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia and Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia is granted

Broadwater v. Commonwealth

533 Pa. 113 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 1993

Brown's Estate

343 Pa. 19 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 1941

Brown, to wit: Robert S. Brown, Frank R. Brown, Elizabeth M. … Where there is a devise to two or more by name without a clear intention to vest the estate in the survivor, the estate will be held to vest severally: Kennedy’s Appeal, 60 Pa. 511, 516 ; Goldstein v.

Martinez v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Phila.

202 A.3d 685 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2019

Smith Co. v. Marano

267 Pa. 107 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 1920

Chief Justice Brown, The facts in this controversy are agreed, upon in a case stated. Smith Company, Limited, is a corporation, with its place of business in the City of St. Johns, Newfoundland. … Stroems Bruks Aktie Bolag v. Hutchison, (1905) A. C. 515, 528. See also Mee v. McNider, 109 N. Y. 500 .”

Campbell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

307 Pa. 365 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 1932

Brown, an employee of the defendant. Judgment having been entered on the verdict, defendant appealed, assigning as error the lower court’s refusal of its motion for judgment n. o. v. … On May 5, 1929, she wrote Brown’s lawyer that she needed the money and asked him to get in touch with Brown.

Thru-Way Equipment Co. v. Commonwealth

468 Pa. 394 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 1976

Home Friendly Insurance v. Lichliter

344 Pa. 242 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 1942

James v. Skippack Township

620 Pa. 286 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 28, 2013

Freedman v. Dalton

344 Pa. 212 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 1942

The trial judge submitted the case to the jury for special findings under the practice we approved in Malone v. Union Paving Co., 306 Pa. 111 , 159 A. 21 ; Shapiro v. Phila., 306 Pa. 216 , 159 A. 29 ; Goodall v. … To sustain the position assumed Vinnacombe v. Phila., 297 Pa. 564 , 147 A. 826 ; Bailey v. C. Lewis Lavine, Inc., 302 Pa. 273 , 153 A. 422 ; Goldman v. Mitchell-Fletcher Co., 292 Pa. 354 , 141 A. 231 , and Maio v.

Sheffield v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

594 Pa. 23 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 2007

Boswell v. Skippack Township

620 Pa. 286 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 28, 2013

Commonwealth v. Turner

454 Pa. 439 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 26, 1973

And what was your purpose in speaking to Miss Brown [the victim] ? A. Well, I went to Miss Brown and I showed her photographs on that date.” “Q. … See Commonwealth v. Groce, 452 Pa. 15 , 303 A. 2d 917 (1973); Commonwealth v. Allen, 448 Pa. 177 , 292 A. 2d 373 (1972).

Borrell v. Borrell

346 Pa. Super. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 1985

Brown v. Hall, supra; Guerin v. Guerin, supra; Commonwealth ex rel. Roviello v. Roviello, supra. … . *8 Brown v. Hall, 495 Pa. at 642-43 , 435 A.2d at 862-63 .

Commonwealth v. Hastings

301 Pa. Super. 65 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 1982

Commonwealth v. Williams, 463 Pa. 370 , 344 A.2d 877 (1975). The precise issue was decided by our Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Brown, 494 Pa. 380 , 431 A.2d 905 (1981). … Rather, the basis of the Court’s decision is that “a court . . . must apply the law as it exists at the time of its decision.. . . ” Commonwealth v. Brown, 494 Pa. 380, 384, 431 A.2d 905, 907 (1981).

Srednick v. Sylak

343 Pa. 486 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 1941

The accident occurred at night while Openhart was driving a five passenger car with nine persons in it and the plaintiff standing on the left running board. … Rainey, 198 Pa. 356, 362 , 47 A. 998 (1901), Brown, J., said: “No one of us can recall the time when to a plea of non assumpsit were not added payment and set-off.

Commonwealth v. Hollister

157 Pa. 13 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 1893

Brown was a competent witness, and, if believed, his testimony alone was sufficient to warrant the jury in finding that a larceny was committed.' In Campbell v. … Engle and Snow participated in taking the money, the testimony all tends to show that they did so animo furandi, in pursuance of the preconcerted scheme to rob, etc., and were therefore guilty, at least of larceny : Com. v.

Commonwealth v. Bradford

616 Pa. 122 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 30, 2012

In Commonwealth v. … We next consider our prior decision in Commonwealth v. Browne, 526 Pa. 83 , 584 A.2d 902 (1990), as discussed by the parties and courts below.