Case law

Olmsted's Case

292 Pa. 96 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 1928

to modify it, and, as long as the rule stands unchanged, the board......must observe it; the action of the board in declining to accept the papers of the applicant, without such formal declarations in writing [as required … L. 131, was an unconstitutional interference with a judicial prerogative; in Hoopes v.

Pennsylvania Range Boiler Co. v. Philadelphia

344 Pa. 34 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 1941

Moreover, in Finley v. … Co. v. Berks Co. R. E. Co. , 333 Pa. 390 . We are satisfied that Shields v.

Matz v. Clairton City

340 Pa. 98 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 1940

Mullen, the Mayor, from the order overruling his motion for judgment n. o. v. and directing that a peremptory writ of mandamus issue reinstating Matz and the entry of judgment for his back salary. … It is well settled that mandamus will not lie to revise the action of one clothed with discretionary powers: Souder v. Philadelphia, 305 Pa. 1, 8 . In Com. ex rel. Lisk v. Davis, Mayor, et al., 126 Pa.

Glenn v. Kittanning Brewing Co.

259 Pa. 510 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 1918

Plaintiff Glenn and Luker, two of the board of directors, represented one faction and the defendants Reese, Stage and Jessop, the remaining members and the majority of the board, the other. … Smith Construction Co., 242 Pa. 269 ; Hechelman v. Geyer, 248 Pa. 430 .

Smith v. Milligan

43 Pa. 107 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 1862

For the boarding and necessaries furnished to a parent, the law implies no promise to pay. But this is an exceptional case. It springs from the intimate relationship of the parties: Lynn v. Lynn, 5 Casey 369. … He said he would not board at any place but the plaintiff’s — that he had enough to pay for his boarding. The tendency of this is to show that gratuitous service was not expected.

Madnick v. Madnick

339 Pa. Super. 130 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 15, 1985

Eileen argued in the court below that Brown v. … Judge Lowe distinguished Brown v.

Tegzes v. Township of Bristol

504 Pa. 304 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 1984

On that date the Board of Commissioners of the Township (hereafter Board) passed a resolution nominating him for the position of chief of police. … In Gardner v.

McCandless Township Appeal

409 Pa. 283 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1962

Over a hundred years ago this Court in Zach v. Pennsylvania RR. … Co. v. Cake, 95 Pa. 139, 144 ; Phoenixville V. F. & S. Electric Railway Company’s Appeal, 70 Pa. Superior Ct. 391, 393, 394 .

Ralph Myers Contracting Corp. v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

496 Pa. 197 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 1981

See, also Carbondale City School District v. … Powell v. Allegheny County Retirement Board, 431 Pa. 396 , 246 A.2d 110 (1968).

Matter of Glancey

515 Pa. 201 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 1987

In Spevack v. … Gardner v. Broderick, infra. Garrity v.

Hunter v. American Steel & Wire Co.

293 Pa. 103 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 1928

As has frequently been stated by this court, the findings of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, supported by evidence, have the weight of the verdict of a jury (Sgattone v. … The legislature has confided to *106 the compensation board and referees the exclusive function of determining what facts are established: Kuca v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 268 Pa. 163 .

Leahey v. Farrell

362 Pa. 52 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 1949

Hillis v. Sullivan, 48 Mon. 320 ; 137 Pac. 392 . … Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 93 Cal. 380 , 28 Pac. 1062 ; County of San Joaquin v. Budd et al., 96 Cal. 47 , 30 Pac. 967 .” (Italics supplied.)

Crouse, Inc. v. Braddock Borough School District

341 Pa. 497 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1941

on the part of the Board.” … The question before us is ruled by our decision in Chilli v. McKeesport School District, 334 Pa. 581 , 6 A. 2d 99 .

Schoch v. American International Corp.

286 Pa. 181 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 1926

(Zeller v. American *188 International Corp., supra), it has uniformly been held that ejectment is the proper action in such case: Com. v. Cochran, 1 Binn. 323 ; Shoenburger v. Becht, 5 Watts 194 ; Wilson v. … L. 478) : Glenn v. Stewart, 265 Pa. 208 ; Shaw v. Cornman, 271 Pa. 260 ; Gailey v. Wilkinsburg Co., 283 Pa. 381 .

Yoder v. Luzerne Township School District

399 Pa. 425 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 4, 1960

V, §508, 24 PS §5-508 reads in part as follows: “The affirmative vote of a majority of all the members of the board of school directors in every school district, duly recorded, showing how each member voted, shall be required … See Commonwealth v. Rosser et al., 102 Pa. Superior Ct. 78, 86 , 156 A. 751 .

Burns v. Johnstown Passenger Railway Co.

213 Pa. 143 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 2, 1906

A passenger who stands on the running board when there is room inside, or when it is reasonably practicable to go inside the car, assumes the risk of his position : Bard v. … Pennsylvania Traction Co., 176 Pa. 97 ; Thane v. Scranton Traction Co., 191 Pa. 249; Bumbear v. United Traction Co., 198 Pa. 198 .

In Re Petition of Dolington Land Group

576 Pa. 519 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 2003

See Hudachek v. Zoning Hearing Board of Newtown Borough, 147 Pa.Cmwlth. 566 , 608 A.2d 652, 656 (1992), and Newtown Land Limited Partnership v. Zoning Hearing Board of Newtown Township, 30 Pa. … Nevertheless, such decisions as C & M Developers and Hopewell Township Board of Supervisors v.

Marcellus Shale Coal. v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot. of Pa.

185 A.3d 985 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 2018

Lee, Inc. v. … See, e.g., Stormans, Inc. v.

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Ake v. Blough

330 Pa. 590 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 9, 1938

The provision is mandatory and must be complied with: Potts v. Penn Twp. School District, 127 Pa. Superior Ct. 173 , 193 A. 290 , and cases there cited. … names of the directors present, and show that they constitute a quorum, and state that the vote was unanimous or that all members voted in the affirmative, this is a substantial compliance with the statute”: McCandless v.

Fiore v. COM. BD. OF FINANCE & REVENUE

534 Pa. 511 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 1993

The three appeals were consolidated in the Commonwealth Court, which affirmed the three contested orders of the Board of Finance and Revenue. Fiore v. … and the Board of Finance and Revenue.