Case law

Shuman v. Main, Beaver & Black Creek Mutual Fire Insurance

265 Pa. 38 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 12, 1919

This was done in accordance with the board’s understanding of the minutes of April 13th. … Supreme Council of Royal Arcanum, 152 Pa. 537, 543 ; Rose v. Independent Chevra Kadisho, 215 Pa. 69, 74 ; Schmitt v. Burns, Fleming & Co., 67 Pa. Superior Ct. 449, 452 .

Kincy v. Petro

606 Pa. 524 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 2010

Kincy v. Petro, 601 Pa. 315 , 972 A.2d 483 (Pa.2009). … For example, in Roznowski v. Pa. Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins.

Eisenlohr's Estate (No. 1)

258 Pa. 431 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1917

In settling the partnership affairs, appellants acted, not as execu *438 tors but as surviving partners, and were not entitled to compensation for such services (Beatty v. Wray, 19 Pa. 516 ; Brown v. … McFarland’s Exr., 41 Pa. 129 ; Gyger’s App., 62 Pa. 73 ; Brown’s App., 89 Pa. 139 ), unless there are special circumstances warranting compensation (Zell’s App., 126 Pa. 329 ; McCullough v.

ODC, Pet v. Wagner, R.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2020

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 2729 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 : Petitioner : No. 80 DB 2020 : v … Respondent shall comply with all the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217, and pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).

Hudgins v. Jewel T Discount Store

351 Pa. Super. 329 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 1986

See Brown v. … See generally Franklin Interiors, Inc. v. Browns Lane, Inc., 227 Pa.Super. 252 , 323 A.2d 226 (1974). . The equities not otherwise being clear, see Balk v.

In re: Canvass of Provis. Ballots Appeal of Walsh

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2024

Brief for Appellee (Board) at 16 (quoting League of Women Voters v. Commonwealth, 178 A.d 737, 804 (Pa. 2018)). … Only then is the board permitted to count the ballot. See 25 P.S. § 3050(a.4)(5)(i). See generally Anderson v.

In Re Franciscus

471 Pa. 53 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 1977

Specter v. … Rule of Procedure Governing The Judicial Inquiry and Review Board 7.

ODC v. Jeff Lee Lewin

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 2019

PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 2617 Disciplinary Board No. 3 : Petitioner : No. 11 DB 2019 : v … Respondent shall comply with all the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217, and pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).

Kungsgaten, Inc. v. Philadelphia

422 Pa. 209 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1966

The assessment was sustained by the Philadelphia Tax Review Board and Kungsgaten appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County which reversed the board and set aside the assessment. … We are of the view that the disposition of this appeal is controlled by our decisions in Shelburne Sportswear, Inc. v. Philadelphia, 422 Pa. 199 , 220 A. 2d 798 (1966), decided today, and Tax Review Board v.

Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Enforcement v. Kelly's Bar, Inc.

536 Pa. 310 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 1994

Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement v. Kelly’s Bar, Inc., t/a Kelly’s Bar, 147 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 710, 609 A.2d 630 (1992). … Based upon its de novo review, it may sustain, alter, change, modify or amend the board’s action whether or not it makes findings which are materially different from those found by the Board or the Administrative Law Judge

Narehood v. Pearson

374 Pa. 299 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 25, 1953

McKean County Board of Assessment & Revision of Taxes, 370 Pa. 468 , 88 A. 2d 782 ; Mauch Chunk Township Taxpayers’ Assn. v. … (No. 1), 229 Pa. 436 , 78 A. 991 ; see also: Hammermill Paper Co. v. Erie, 372 Pa., supra. Taxpayers rely upon Cumberland Coal Co. v. Board of Revision of Tax Assessments in Greene County, 284 U.S. 23 .

Baring v. Shippen

2 Binn. 154 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 26, 1809

This principle was first broken in upon in the case of Walton v. … Johnson v. Chaffant.

Philadelphia v. Budney

396 Pa. 87 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 28, 1959

Appellant now seeks to use this proceeding to raise the same issue after it had been previously raised before the board ■ of adjustment and after the appeal from the board’s decision had been dismissed by the court' *89 of … Baederwood Center, Inc. v. Putney, 390 Pa. 53 , 133 A. 2d 836 (1957) ; Pittsburgh Outdoor Advertising Company v. Clairton, 390 Pa. 1 , 133 A. 2d 542 (1957).

Commonwealth v. Fisher

485 Pa. 8 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 1, 1979

During this questioning, Fisher walked to the far side of Officer Brown’s vehicle and bent down. … See Commonwealth v. Cartagena, 482 Pa. 6, 28 , 393 A.2d 350, 361 (1978) (plurality opinion).

Coleman v. Pawelec

500 Pa. 511 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 1983

Petrash Guardianship

425 Pa. 433 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 25, 1967

This board petitioned the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County for the appointment of a guardian to prosecute Miss Petrash’s cause *435 of action against Steele so as to create a fund from which the board could reimburse … As late as 1948, this Court said in Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v.

ODC, Pet v. William C. Kerr, III

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 2016

lN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVAN|A OFF|CE OF D|SC|PL|NARY COUNSEL, : No. 2306 DiSCip|inary DOCket NO. 3 Petitioner : No. 9 DB 2015 v. : Attorney Registration No. 90668 W|LLlAl\/| C. … Such reports shall be forwarded to the Secretary of the Disciplinary Board and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel; and 4.

Betters v. Beaver Co., Greene Twp Pet of Beaver Co

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2019

: : : v. … : MCILWAIN, CHIEF ASSESSOR : GREENE TOWNSHIP BOARD OF : SUPERVISORS, HOPEWELL : TOWNSHIP BOARD OF : COMMISSIONERS, AND POTTER : TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS :

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Knepp

497 Pa. 396 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 1982

The matter was referred to the Disciplinary Board (Board) on May 29, 1981. … Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lewis, 493 Pa. 519 , 426 A.2d 1138 (1981); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Herman, 493 Pa. 267 , 426 A.2d 101 (1981); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v.

Blair v. M'Kee

6 Serg. & Rawle 193 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 1820

This case has a very striking resemblance to that of Caufman v. … The surveyor, in 1814, had no right to garble the land at his will and pleasure, and he should have returned the matter specially to the Board of Property. Merchant and Bright v. Millison, & Sm. L. 165.