Case law

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.

Pike County v. Rowland

94 Pa. 238 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 1880

A provision that a majority s'hall form a board for the transaction of business does not change the rule : Harding v. Vandewater, 40 Cal. 77 . … In Wheeler v. Philadelphia, 27 P. F.

Dellenbaugh v. COM. CAT FUND

562 Pa. 558 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2000

See generally Tool Sales & Service Co. v. Commonwealth, 536 Pa. 10, 22 , 637 A.2d 607, 613 (1993) (agencies are accorded deference in interpreting the statutes they enforce). … Commonwealth Court relied on its own decision in Central Dauphin School District v.

Garrity v. Bituco Mfg. & Chemical Co.

277 Pa. 88 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 1923

We said, in Lovasz v. … Though the act is remedial, and is to receive a liberal construction (Pater v.

Yuhasz v. Pitt Construction Co.

305 Pa. 166 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1931

It cannot be held as matter of law that this light, loose board was such a guard. See O’Malley v. Parsons Boro., 191 Pa. 612 . … Co., 289 Pa. 128 ; Lane v. Dickinson, 276 Pa. 306 , and cases there cited; also Ida Klein v. City of Pittsburgh, 97 Pa. Superior Ct. 55, 61 , and cases there cited.

In Re: Administrative Governing Board of the First Judicial District

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 2016

AND NOW, this 27th day of January, 2016, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to this Court’s general supervisory and administrative authority governing practice in the Courts of this Commonwealth as set forth in Article V, … (D) The Board shall in all instances act in accordance with the vote of the majority of its six voting members. Each of the Board’s voting members shall have one vote.

McCracken Appeal

370 Pa. 562 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 29, 1952

McCracken then appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County and the court en banc (made up of three judges other than the two who sat on the Return Board) affirmed the decision of the Return Board. Mr. … This Court held in Boord et al. v. Maurer, 343 Pa. 309, 312 , 22 A. 2d 902 , that: “The Election Code makes the County Board of Election more than a mere ministerial body.

Peirce Appeal

384 Pa. 100 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 1956

However, no additional testimony was adduced before tbe board. … The clear implication of our decision in Humphreys v.

Building Service Employees International Union, Local 252 v. Schlesinger

440 Pa. 448 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1970

It still is true that “[n] ormally the question of whether a party committed an unfair labor practice is to be determined initially and solely by the Board, subject to review.” Surprenant Mfg. Co. v. … But it is not that kind of proceeding over which the Labor Board has exclusive jurisdiction. Portland Web Pressmen’s Union v. Oregonian Publishing Co., 286 P. 2d 4 , C.A. 9th, cert. denied, 366 U.S. 912 , 81 S.

Perkins v. Hasbrouck

155 Pa. 494 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 1893

It was said in Smith v. Milligan, 43 Pa. 109 , by Mr. Justice Strong : “ The relationship of a father-in-law to his son-in-law is not so intimate. … That he had to pay his board wherever he was, and that it was pleasant and quiet there for him.” It was also proved that decedent with his wife had boarded previously with appellee and had paid for their board.

Diehl v. Rodgers

169 Pa. 316 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 1895

Passing by the obvious doubt whether any doctrine established by Lord Chief Justice Holt can fairly be called modern, we find that what Coke says in Browne v. … In Wood v.

Anderson v. McAfoos

618 Pa. 478 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 2012

See Wexler v. … See Anderson v. McAfoos, No. 356 WDA 2009, slip op. at 11-12 (Pa.Super. Mar. 19, 2010) (citing Vicari v.

Commonwealth v. Britton, S., Aplt

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 2020

By way of example, the trial court highlighted the Supreme Court of Washington’s decision in State v. Brown, 940 P.2d 546 (Wash. 1997), which we will summarize briefly. … Basile v. H & R Block, Inc., 761 A.2d 1115, 1120 (Pa. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Scott v.

Abington Heights SD v. PLRB, Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 2023

v. : 2021 Reversing the Pennsylvania : Labor Relations Board's Order : entered March 19, 2021 at No. … : 2021 Reversing the Pennsylvania PENNSYLVANIA LABOR RELATIONS : Labor Relations Board's Order BOARD : entered March 19, 2021

Allstate Prop & Casualty Ins Co, Aplt v. Wolfe, J.

629 Pa. 444 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 2014

The district court rejected Allstate’s contentions, however, relying upon a contrary pronouncement by the Superior Court in Brown v. Candelora, 708 A.2d 104 (Pa. Super. 1998). See Wolfe v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. … Pa. 2012) (citing Brown, 708 A.2d at 110). The district court did not discuss Brown’s reasoning or compare it with that of the Feingold courts.

In the Matter of: Anthony C. Cappuccio

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2025

See ODC v. … See also Office of Disciplinary Counsel v.

Commonwealth v. Hicks

434 Pa. 153 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 1969

This argument is premised upon the teaching of Terry v. Ohio, supra, Sibron v. New York, supra, and Peters v. … Terry v. Ohio, supra. 5 When it was first argued before this Court, the decisions in Terry v. Ohio, Sihron v. New York and Peters v. New York, dll supra, had not been entered.

Amendment of Iolta Board Regulations

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2017

THE COURTS Title 204—JUDICIAL SYSTEM GENERAL PROVISIONS PART V. PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND CONDUCT [ 204 PA.  … The judges and justices of all courts created pursuant to Article V, Sections 6 and 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution are subject to MJ-IOTA.

Reilly v. Erie Railroad

264 Pa. 329 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 1919

(Leary v. … McIlvain, 263 Pa. 499 ), with directions to see that such findings were made and properly stated upon the record: Gurski v. Susquehanna Coal Co., 262 Pa. 1 . In Messinger v. Lehigh Valley R. R.

Genser v. Butler Brd. of Elec. Appeal of: RNC

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 2024

. & Constr. v. … See Ursinus Coll. v.