Case law

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Saltzburg v. Fulcomer

382 Pa. Super. 422 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 1989

Board of Com’r. of Potter County v. Turner, 33 Pa.Cmwlth. 639 , 382 A.2d 1248 (1978). … Bronson v. Pennsylvania Board of Parole, 491 Pa. 549, 554 , 421 A.2d 1021, 1023 (1980).

Ripani v. Dittman

297 Pa. 124 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1929

To secure further light on the cause of death the referee called upon the expert of the compensation board, Dr. Carnett, as he had the right to do: Clemens v. Cornish, 295 Pa. 73 . … which to base an award, and the record was remitted to the board to make a clearer statement, with the direction to hear further testimony, if deemed necessary, — a proper order under the circumstances: Driscoll v.

Clark v. Meade

369 Pa. 409 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 1951

This request was refused by the Board following which the Controller filed this complaint in mandamus. *411 In Clark v. … The Board, however, relying on Selig v. Philadelphia, 232 Pa. 309, 81 A. 308 , argues that it is a state agency and consequently its records are not subject to examination and audit by the Controller.

Quinn v. Cumberland County

162 Pa. 55 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 23, 1894

The fifth and last section provided that the board of health then acting should continue in existence until a new board should be appointed. - It will be observed that although the board of health thus provided for, was to … We think also the case is brought within the operation of the principle applied in Com. v. Macferron, 152 Pa. 244 , in considering legislation for cities by classes.

McNeely & Price Co. v. Philadelphia Piers, Inc.

329 Pa. 113 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 1937

Springs , 199 U.S. 473 ; see Brown v. Houston , *Page 124 114 U.S. 622 , 631 ; Minnesota Rate Cases , 230 U.S. 352 , 363 , 407 . … Board of Agriculture , 171 U.S. 345 ; McLean Co. v. Denver Rio Grande R. Co. , 203 U.S. 38 , 54 ; Red 'C' Oil Mfg. Co. v. Board of Agriculture , 222 U.S. 380 ; Savage v. Jones , 225 U.S. 501 ; Merchants Exchange v.

White v. Old York Road Country Club

318 Pa. 346 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 1935

White, having joined in a protest before the board granting the permit, had no standing in equity to maintain this bill. He should have appealed: see Taylor v. Moore, supra. … This proceeding for an injunction could then have been dismissed when the appearance before the board was shown: Taylor v. Moore, supra.

First Baptist Ch. of Pbgh. v. Pbgh.

341 Pa. 568 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 1941

On November 19, 1938, the board again took the matter under consideration and refused to reconsider its former decision. This refusal of reconsideration was not reviewable: cf. McCready v. … Dept. of Public Instruction, 324 Pa. 371, 375 , 188 A. 337 ; State Board of Undertakers v. Frankenfield, 329 Pa. 440 , 198 A. 302 . Also, see McGettigan’s Liquor License Case, 131 Pa.

Commonwealth v. Yorktowne Paper Mills, Inc.

419 Pa. 363 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 1965

See Dipple v. Pittsburgh, 373 Pa. 307 , 95 A. 2d 925 (1953); Ifft v. Hunter, 202 Pa. Superior Ct. 487 , 198 A. 2d 436 (1964); cf. Commonwealth v. Simon, 413 Pa. 609 , 198 A. 2d 583 (1964); Hazel Twp. … McDonald v. Feldman, 393 Pa. 274, 278 , 142 A. 2d 1, 3 (1958); Fort Pitt Stamping & Enameling Co. v. American Natural Gas Co., 269 Pa. 162 , 112 Atl. 35 (1920); Welch v. Harrigan, 79 Pa. Superior Ct. 138 (1922).

Willistown Twp. v. Main Line Gardens

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF : No. 371 MAL 2018 WILLISTOWN TOWNSHIP, : : … : Respondent : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from : the Order of the Commonwealth Court : v

Penn. Mut. Fire Ins. v. Schmidt

119 Pa. 449 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 2, 1888

Brown v. Fire Ins. Co., 41 Pa. 187 . It goes upon the theory of an increased risk by reason of incumbrances. … It is sufficient to refer to Brown v. The Ins. Co., supra; Insurance Co. v. Gottsman, 48 Pa. 151 ; Seybert v. Penn. M. F. Ins. Co., 103 Pa. 282 .

Commonwealth v. Union League

135 Pa. 301 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 26, 1890

Ass’n v. … Soc., 8 W. & S. 247 ; Toram v. Benef. Association, 4 Pa. 519 . In Society v.

Department of Public Welfare v. Presbyterian Medical Center

583 Pa. 336 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 2005

Oakmont further cites to decisions of this Court that maintain a liberal construction of the Board of Claims Act, see; e.g., Lowry v. … Hollander v.

Hart Appeal

410 Pa. 439 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 1963

The sole question here is whether the Board committed a manifest abuse of its discretion or an error of law. Poster Advertising Co. v. … Archbishop O’Hara’s Appeal, 389 Pa. 35 , 131 A. 2d 587 (1957). *446 Considerable reliance is placed upon Kotzin v.

Edwards Zoning Case

392 Pa. 188 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 1958

See Fleming v. *195 Prospect Park Board of Adjustment, 318 Pa. 582 , 178 Atl. 813 (1935). 4 One who acquires property intending to circumvent the use restrictions of a zoning ordinance does so at his financial peril. … Dunlap Appeal, 370 Pa. 31 , 87 A. 2d 299 (1952); Pincus v. Powers, 376 Pa. 175 , 101 A. 2d 914 (1954).

Volpe Appeal

384 Pa. 374 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 13, 1956

A board of adjustment has no power or right to set at naught a zoning statute or ordinance under the guise of a variance: Lukens v. Ridley Township Zoning Board, 367 Pa. 608 , 80 A. 2d 765; Devereaux Foundation, Inc. … Zoning Board of Adjustment, 379 Pa. 497 , 109 A. 2d 147 ; Walker v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 380 Pa. 228 , 110 A. 2d 414 .

National Loan & Building Ass'n v. Lichtenwalner

100 Pa. 100 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 1882

That this is a contract of guaranty is settled by abundant authority: Bank v. Haynes, 8 Pick 423 ; Curtis v. Brown, 2 Barb. 55 ; Isett v. Hoge, 2 Watts 128 ; Johnston v. Chapman, 3 Penna. R. 18; Hoffman v. Bechtel, 2. … Brown v. Brooks, 1 Casey 210 ; Kirkpatrick v. White, 5 Id. 177; Gilbert v. Henck, 6 Id. 209, Overton v. Tracy, 14 S. & R. 327. And it must vary with the circumstances of each case, hence it is a question for the jury.

Neshaminy Water Resources Authority v. Commonwealth, Department of Environmental Resources

511 Pa. 334 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 1986

Commonwealth Court properly determined that NWRA was not entitled to pre-enforcement relief from these regulations under our recent decision in Arsenal Coal v. … See generally Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 , 103 S.Ct. 2856 , 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983); Duke Power Co. v.

Hanover Township School Directors

290 Pa. 95 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 24, 1927

Finally, in Carney v. … As said by us in Summers v.

Evans v. Otis Elevator Co.

403 Pa. 13 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 13, 1961

Div. 2d 464, 200 N.Y.S. 2d 700 ; Jones v. Otis Elevator Co., 234 N. C. 512 , 67 S.E. 2d 492 ; Durham v. Warner Elevator Mfg. Co., 166 Ohio St. 31 , 139 N.E. 2d 10 ; Wolfmeyer v. … Otis introduced no testimony to show that these roof boards were not loose or insecurely fastened. Otis urges that, in view of Evans’ testimony that he “heard the cracking of boards and a board came and hit . . .

H. A. Steen Industries, Inc. v. Cavanaugh

430 Pa. 10 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 24, 1968

E.g., Norate Corp., Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 417 Pa. 397 , 406 n. 8, 207 A. 2d 890 , 895 n. 8 (1965); Rogalski v. … E.g., Anstine v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 411 Pa. 33 , 190 A. 2d 712 (1963); Hadley’s Case, 336 Pa. 100 , 6 A. 2d 874 (1939).