Case law

Terrizzi Beverage Co. v. Local Union No. 830

408 Pa. 380 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 1962

to that board’s determination. … Appellee’s argument that “slow down” by members of a union is not such an activity as is protected or prohibited by the National Labor Relations Board is given weight by the case of International Union v.

Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. Sanders & Thomas, Inc.

461 Pa. 420 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 1975

See Murray Hill Estates, Inc. v. Bastin, 442 Pa. 405 , 276 A.2d 542 (1971); Mauch v. Pittsburgh Pension Board, 383 Pa. 448 , 119 A.2d 193 (1956); Palmergreen v. … Parisi v. Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment, 393 Pa. 458, 462 , 143 A.2d 360 (1958); see H. C. Frick Coke Company Appeal, 352 Pa. 269, 274 , 42 A.2d 532 (1945); Scott v.

Roach v. Oswald Lever Co.

274 Pa. 139 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 8, 1922

Montgomey, 272 Pa. 56, 61 ; Kuca v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 268 Pa. 163 ; and see Strohl v. Eastern Pa. Rys. Co., 270 Pa. 132 . … Moreover, the statute, as above quoted, says the compensation board “may” order further physical examinations, not that it must1 do so; therefore, it1 is a matter for the sound discretion of the board, or primarily of the

Seaboard Surety Co. v. Commonwealth

350 Pa. 87 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 1944

Jur. pgs. 933, 966; Curran v. Philadelphia, 264 Pa. 111, 119 . In Berizzi Co. v. … In Horowitz v. Kaplan, 224 N. Y.

Rufo v. Bd. of License & Inspection Review

192 A.3d 1113 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2018

Steen Indus., Inc. v. Cavanaugh , 430 Pa. 10 , 241 A.2d 771 (1968) ). … Id. at 403-04 (quoting Redevelopment Authority of Oil City v.

Gouwens v. Indiana Twp Bd of Sup Pet of Fox Chapel

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2021

: : : INDIANA TOWNSHIP BOARD OF : SUPERVISORS AND FOX CHAPEL : ESTATES, L.P. … : : : INDIANA TOWNSHIP BOARD OF : SUPERVISORS AND FOX CHAPEL : ESTATES, L.P.

Commonwealth v. Insurance Co. of North America

533 Pa. 112 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 1993

In Re: Extending March 27, 2020, Order Regarding Timing And Means For Holding Hearings Before The Board of Law Examiners

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 2020

OF LAW EXAMINERS : : ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 30th day of July, 2020, upon the recommendation of the Board of Law Examiners … (“the Board”), IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, that Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Court’s Order of March 27, 2020, are extended and modified as follows: 2.

Kellman v. McShain

369 Pa. 14 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 27, 1951

Varano v. Home Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 164 Pa. Super. 228 (1949); Tannenbaum v. Fire Insurance Companies, 127 Pa. Super. 278, 284-5 (1937). … We have said in Humphreys v.

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.

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.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Christie

536 Pa. 394 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1994

Nevertheless, we give substantial deference to the findings and recommendations of the board. Id; Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Costigan, 526 Pa. 16, 20, 24 , 584 A.2d 296, 298, 300 (1990). … See also Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Eilberg, 497 Pa. 388, 391 , 441 A.2d 1193, 1195 (1982) (The board’s findings and recommendations, although advisory in nature, are often persuasive.).

Southpointe Golf Club, Pet v. Southpointe Property

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 2022

ZAWACKI; ROSLYN : CORTON; YING WEI; MARLENE V. : PIEROTTI REVOCABLE TRUST, : MARLENE V. PIEROTTI, TRUSTEE; : RICHARD C. GOODWILL; TIMOTHY J. … : SINGLETON; RICHARD DEAN AND : JUDITH ELLEN MCALLISTER; PAUL V. : AMBROSE FAMILY TRUST, PAUL V. : AMBROSE AND GLORIA J. URSITZ : TRUSTEES; DENNIS P. AND PAMELA J.

Wall v. Pittsburg

205 Pa. 48 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 1903

On the question of the city’s negligence, the court seems to have ruled the case on the authority of Monongahela City v. … But Primrose street was not an ordinary public road as in Monongahela v. Fischer, supra; it was a regularly laid out street at the time of the accident, on the city plan, and had been so laid out for several years.

Ralston v. Derry Township School District

363 Pa. 58 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 1949

If the contract entered into by appellant and the School Board was for any reason invalid it is clear that he is not protected by the Tenure Act, since no rights can be obtained under a void contract: Langan v. … authorized by the School Board and that the contract was not signed by a properly elected Secretary of the Board.

In Re Revocation of Distributor License Number D-3562

499 Pa. 8 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 1982

Pennsylvania *12 Tavern Association v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 23 Pa.Cmwlth. 264 , 352 A.2d 221 (1976). … Pennsylvania Tavern Association v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, supra, 472 Pa. at 571 , 372 A.2d at 1189 .

Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority Appeal

413 Pa. 339 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 1964

See also Comly v. Philadelphia, 153 Pa. Superior Ct. 539 , 35 A. 2d 85 (1943). … In Miles v.

Parente Appeal

390 Pa. 249 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 1957

The board in this instance did not attempt to cumulate the write-in votes on the voting machines. Consequently, no question as to the board’s power in such regard is now before us. … quoted at length pertinent statements from Boord v.

Myers v. Newtown Township School District

396 Pa. 542 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 1959

of law, or of arbitrary action, or of a clear abuse of discretion, especially if it results in an unlawful expenditure of public funds: Mason v. … Hanover Township School District, 242 Pa. 359 , 89 A. 552 ; Ritzman v. Coal Township School Directors, 317 Pa. 271 , 176 A. 447 ; McLaughlin v. Lansford Borough School District, 335 Pa. 17 , 6 A. 2d 291 .

Commonwealth v. Smith, J., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2025

Smith’s Brief at 14 (citing Commonwealth v. Brown, 347 A.2d 716, 718 (Pa. 1975) overruled, in part, by Commonwealth v. Richardson, 474 A.2d 1361 (Pa. 1984); Commonwealth v. … Brown v. United States, 338 F.2d 543, 545 (D.C. Cir. 1964).