Case law

Bethlehem Auth v. ZHB of Penn Forest Twp.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 2022

2022 : : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal : from the Order of the v … : Commonwealth Court : THE ZONING HEARING BOARD OF PENN : FOREST TOWNSHIP : : PETITION OF: PENN FORREST TOWNSHIP

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 .

Robinson v. Philadelphia

400 Pa. 80 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 23, 1960

Each board shall select a hospital director or superintendent who shall, subject to the authority of the board, administer the hospital in all its departments. … Curll v. Dairymen’s C. S. Association, 389 Pa. 216 , 132 A. 2d 271 ; Erie v. Gulf Oil Corpration, 395 Pa. 383 , 150 A. 2d 351 ; Kelly v. Philadelphia, 382 Pa. 459 , 115 A. 2d 238 ; McDonald v.

McDevitt v. McDevitt

365 Pa. 18 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 1950

Philadelphia, 826 Pa. 302 , 308, 192 A. 133, 136 ; Goldstein v. International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, 328 Pa. 385, 389 , 196 A. 43, 46 . … Cornell & Son, Inc. v. Rosenwald, 339 Pa. 18 , 13 A. 2d 716 ; Margolies v. Zimmerman, 341 Pa. 493 , 19 A. 2d 737 . The order of the court below denying appellant’s petition is affirmed at appellant’s costs.

Schmidt v. Commonwealth

495 Pa. 238 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 1981

A petition for review under Section 234 is deemed filed only when it is actually received by the Board of Finance and Revenue. Commonwealth v. J. & R. … Commonwealth, Department of Revenue v. Niemey *241 er Oldsmobile, Inc., 12 Pa.Cmwlth. 388 , 316 A.2d 152 (1974).

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.

Maloney v. Stahlnecker

341 Pa. 517 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 1941

Appeals by all appellants to the Superior Court followed and that Court very properly ordered the reinstatement of appellant, MacDonald, for the reason set *521 forth in Kassarich v. Unemply. Comp. Board, 139 Pa. … by the Board was not subject to review *522 by that Court.

Imperial Asphalt Corp. of Pennsylvania Zoning Case

359 Pa. 402 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 1948

Superior Ct. 502 ; Taylor v. Haverford Twp., 299 Pa. 402, 414 , 149 A. 639 ; Gilfillan’s Permit, 291 Pa. 358 , 140 A. 136 . … The Board made no findings of fact and gave no reason for its decision.” In other words, the board had not justified its action as the law requires.

Commonwealth v. Carelli

377 Pa. Super. 117 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 1988

The Brown court found the Lopez-Hoffa-Lewis line to be applicable to the facts in Brown , as the defendant in Brown had voluntarily surrendered the gun he had used as a murder weapon, to a known policeman, who was "undercover … Brown, supra, [261 A.2d], at p. 882, citing Hoffa, supra, 385 U.S. at 302 , 87 S.Ct. at 413 . . The majority notes that Commonwealth v.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Anonymous Attorney A

528 Pa. 83 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 1991

The Judicial Inquiry and Review Board was created by amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution, adopted April 23, 1968. See, Article V, Section 18, Pa. Const. . … The Disciplinary Board was created by this Court pursuant to its inherent power to supervise the attorneys of this Commonwealth under Article V, Section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Commonwealth v. Balch

328 Pa. Super. 71 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 1984

One of them was wearing a short-sleeved brown shirt and brown pants. This matched the clothing worn by the defendant Balch later that evening at the time of the defendant’s arrest at approximately 10 p.m. … He was also able to identify the short-sleeved brown shirt and brown pants worn by the defendant Balch.” (Opinion, June 7, 1982, at 2-4.) Motions to suppress the pillowcase and silverware seized by the police from Mr.

Sterrett v. MacLean

293 Pa. 557 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 15, 1928

, whose salary is to be fixed by that board, and the salaries of the other clerks and deputies as allowed by the salary board to remain as heretofore fixed by that board.” … This right of appeal is from any conclusion reached by the salary board: Bedford v. Rosser, supra.

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

Quigley, C. v. UCBR, Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 2021

Further, the Board submits that, in Peak v. … Board Brief at 29 (citing Krupinski v.

Allegheny County Prison Employees Local Union 693 v. McClelland

410 Pa. 654 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 1963

L. 829, Prison Board is responsible for the control, management, maintenance, and discipline over prison matters and prison employees. See Miller v. County of Allegheny, 109 Pitt. *657 L.J. 136, 137 (1961). … In addition, the salary schedules of prison employees cannot be considered by Salary Board without a request first being made to that body by the executive head of Prison Board. See Simon 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

Commonwealth v. Turner

456 Pa. 309 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 1974

Hilberry v. Maroney, 424 Pa. 493, 495 , 227 A.2d 159, 160 (1967). Accord, Commonwealth v. Brown, 443 Pa. 21, 27-28 , 275 A.2d 332, 335 (1971) ; Commonwealth v. … Compare Commonwealth v. Harris, supra, with Commonwealth v. Brown, supra, and Commonwealth ex rel. Hilberry v. Maroney, 424 Pa. 493 , 227 A.2d 159 (1967). Judgment of sentence affirmed. Mr.

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.

Thudium v. Yost

7 Sadler 306 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 1887

Scott, 80 Pa. 88 ; Lippincott v. Whitman, 83 Pa. 244 ; Greenawalt v. Kohne, 85 Pa. 369 ; Gallan v. Lukens, 89 Pa. 134 ; Phillips v. Meily, 106 Pa. 536 ; Spencer v. Colt, 89 Pa. 314 ; Brown v. … Morange, 108 Pa. 69 ; Walker v. Prance, 112 Pa. 203 , 5 Atl. 208 ; Thomas v. Loose, 114 Pa. 35 , 6 Atl. 326 . In Brown v.

Commonwealth v. Gibbons

196 Pa. 97 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 21, 1900

It was distinctly held in Zulich v. Bowman, 42 Pa. 83 , that until the second meeting was over it could not be finally ascertained that the member was absent. See also Genesee Township Independent School District v. … It would be sufficient answer to cite the precedent of Zulich v. Bowman, supra, but the remedy is clear on principle.