Case law

Katzin v. McShain

371 Pa. 251 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1952

Jennings’ Appeal, 330 *254 Pa. 154, 198 A. 621 ; Berman v. Exley, 355 Pa. 415 , 50 A. 2d 199 ; Darling v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of Phila., 357 Pa. 428 , 54 A. 2d 829 . … In the case of Ventresca v.

F. W. Woolworth Co. Tax Assessment Case

426 Pa. 583 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 1967

The Board of Property Assessment, Appeals and Review of Allegheny County (Board) introduced the assessment of $1,493,730 and rested. The taxpayers called a real estate broker as an expert witness. … Deitch Company v. Board of Property Assessment, 417 Pa. 213 , 209 A. 2d 397 (1965); McKnight Shopping Center, Inc. v. Board of Property Assessment, 417 Pa. 234 , 209 A. 2d 389 (1965); Borg-Warner Corp. v.

Bedford v. Rosser

283 Pa. 345 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 1925

J. 841; Maginnis v. Schlottman, 271 Pa. 305 . … The board to revise taxes has the right to call to ‘its assistance experts, so that a proper valuation of coal lands and other real estate may be had (Pardee v.

Plazak v. Allegheny Steel Company

324 Pa. 422 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 1936

Bank, 202 Pa. 94 , 51 A. 765 ; where a board of directors wrongfully authorized the payment of money: Link v. … E. 824 ; Wiersycki v. Pratt et al., 151 N. Y. Misc. 207, 271 N. Y. S. 36; Scott v. Rinehart & Co. (W. Va.), 180 S. E. 276 ; Field v. Gazette Publishing Co., 187 Ark. 253 , 59 S. W. (2d) 19 ; Brown v.

In re: Three PA Skill Amusement; Apl. of: Comm

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 2026

I depart from the Majority, however, with respect to its analysis and disposition of the appeal in POM of Pennsylvania, LLC v. Department of Revenue, 221 A.3d 717 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (en banc) (POM). … that the Board may issue. 4 Pa.

Crawford Zoning Case

358 Pa. 636 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 6, 1948

Whether the board’s refusal to certify the requested variance is tantamount to a manifest abuse of discretion is the sole factor to be adjudged, Jennings’ Appeal, 330 *641 Pa. 154, 198 A. 621 ; Fleming v. … The appellee cites in justification of the action of the Zoning Board the case of Kurman et al. v. Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment et al., 351 Pa. 247 , 40 A. 2d 381 .

Potter v. Gilbert

177 Pa. 159 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1896

Lawrence & Brown were to pay all taxes assessed on improvements, which last were not to pass to the lessors by reason of erection on the land. … No truer principle of real justice was ever uttered than by Gibson, J., when he said, referring to hardship as an element in the construction of covenants, in Lighty v.

Williamson's Estate

153 Pa. 508 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 1893

These are the assessors, the board of revision, and the court of common pleas. … The fund being distributable here is subject to the collateral inheritance tax under the rule stated in Miller v. The Commonwealth, 111 Pa. 321 .

Marshall, Jr., Aplts v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2019

Appellant : Appeal from the Order of the : Commonwealth Court at No. 863 FR : 2015 dated December 13, 2018 v … the exceptions and entered : judgment against taxpayer of the : November 2, 2018 order that Affirmed COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : the PA Board

Krasner, L., Aplt. v. Senator Kim Ward

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2024

The court acknowledged prior decisions from our Court, such as Brown v. … See Brown v.

Krasner, L. v. Ward, K.; Apl. of: Bonner

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2024

The court acknowledged prior decisions from our Court, such as Brown v. … See Brown v.

American Casualty Co. v. KLIGERMAN

365 Pa. 168 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 1950

Superior Ct. 38 , 1 A. 2d 839 ; Demmel v. Dilworth Company et al., 136 Pa. Superior Ct. 37 , 7 A. 2d 50 ; Meyers v. Lehigh Valley Transportation Company et al., 138 Pa. Superior Ct. 569 , 10 A. 2d 879 ; Rowles v. … This reads: “The board, or a referee designated by the board, may, at any time, review and modify or set aside an original or supplemental agreement, upon petition filed by either party with the board or in the course of

Malt Beverage Distributors Assoc. v. LCB

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 30, 2016

: Petition for Allowance of Appeal from Petitioners : the Order of the Commonwealth Court : : v … : : : PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL : BOARD, : : Respondent

Hibernia Building Ass'n v. McGrath

154 Pa. 296 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 1893

In Tompkins v. … This rule thus stated is repeated in Scott v. Bank of Chester Valley, 72 Pa. 471 ; Bank of Carlisle v. Graham, 79 Pa. 117 . His designation as treasurer did not change the character of the bailment.

Alberts v. Garofalo

393 Pa. 212 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 1958

Bragg v. Swarthmore School District, 337 Pa. 363, 368 , 11 A. 2d 152 (1940). Cf. Simpson v. South Mahoning Township School Board, 365 Pa. 567 , 76 A. 2d 385 (1950). … The power of a school board under appropriate circumstances to suspend a professional employe during the pendency of a proceeding for discharge is not here involved. Kaplan v.

Winger v. Aires

371 Pa. 242 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1952

school directors perform discretionary acts in the interests of public welfare and that their decisions have been reached by the exercise of intelligent judgment and in a legal manner after suitable investigation (Hibbs v. … Co. v.

Commonwealth v. Jersey Shore Area School District

481 Pa. 356 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1978

Accord, Tyler v. … Mullen v.

Tarner v. Chambersburg Borough School District

338 Pa. 417 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 1940

that statute: Goldberg v. … C. 136; Marshall v. Uniontown School District, 262 Pa. 224 , 105 A. 78 ; Cooke v. Roberts, 335 Pa. 561 , 7 A. (2d) 357; Johnson v. Abington Twp. School Dist., 95 Pa. Superior Ct. 561 ; Swaney v.

Duquesne Light Company Case

345 Pa. 458 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 1942

industry, (4) relationship between any proposed unit and the employer’s organization, including geographical location of the parts, and (5) skill, wages, working conditions and work of the employees: Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. … policy of the state “to protect the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and *463 designation of representatives of their own choosing”: See Dissenting Opinion, Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v.

Irwin v. Keen

3 Whart. 347 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 1838

This principle is distinctly asserted, in M'Clurg v. Lecky, (3 Penn. Rep. 94). … In M‘Clurg v. Lecky, it was attempted to distinguish a legal from a moral fraud.