Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
1.62s
Laird v. Clearfield & Mahoning Railway Co.
591 Pa. 322 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 2007
While this Court has not expressly addressed this specific issue, in Brown v. … Brown, 434 A.2d at 1181 . Further, the Superior Court specifically addressed whether an appeal may be taken from a consent decree in Sarsfield v. Sarsfield, 251 Pa.Super. 516 , 380 A.2d 899 (1977).
Cited 16 timesPublishedDay v. Amwell Township School District
283 Pa. 248 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 1925
The school board having the right under the School Code of 1911, P. … And in the very late case of Hibbs et al. v.
Cited 11 timesPublishedSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 2024
Docket No. 3 COUNSEL, : : Petitioner : No. 88 DB 2022 : v … Respondent shall comply with the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217 and pay costs to the Disciplinary Board. See Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).
Cited 0 timesPublished187 Pa. 108 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 1898
In Korn v. Browne, 64 Pa. 55 , which appears to be the first ease in which the act was considered, it was decided that as the act did not go into effect for three years the retroactive bar was constitutional. … In Biddle v.
Cited 10 timesPublished347 Pa. 27 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 1943
On a demurrer to the Board’s return to the writ the court entered judgment in favor of the executors. The Board appeals. … E. 489 , in which it was held that the decision in Smith v.
Cited 5 timesPublished405 Pa. 184 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 10, 1961
Meell appeared before the county board of elections and challenged the validity of certain absentee ballots wherein a vote was cast for candidate Maxwell. The board overruled the challenges. … The question of the validity of ballots involved is not for us to say: DeVito v. Civil Service Commission, 404 Pa. 354 , 172 A. 2d 161 (1961); Dauphin Deposit Trust Company v.
Cited 4 timesPublished460 Pa. 673 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 1975
In Brown v. … Brown, 430 Pa. 401 , 243 A.2d 444 (1968). The reason for the rule requiring notice of the intention to stand on the defense of the Statute of Frauds is evident.
Cited 22 timesPublishedWest Philadelphia Achievement Charter Elementary School v. School District of Philadelphia
635 Pa. 127 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2016
Panama Refining Co. v. … State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs v.
Cited 12 timesPublishedSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 2022
: No. 2915 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 COUNSEL, : Petitioner : No. 41 DB 2022 : v … Respondent shall comply with all the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217 and pay costs to the Disciplinary Board. See Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).
Cited 0 timesPublished522 Pa. 114 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 1989
Cited 1 timesPublishedNo opinion textMcCormick v. Allegheny General Hospital
364 Pa. Super. 210 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 1987
— a matter which was exclusively within the Board’s control. … See Wolf v. Commonwealth, 403 Pa. 499 , 170 A.2d 557 (1961); Society *220 Hill Towers Association v. Matthew, 306 Pa.Super. 13 , 451 A.2d 1366 (1982); McAllonis v.
Cited 23 timesPublishedCity of Clairton v. ZHB of Clairton
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 2022
: v. … : : : ZONING HEARING BOARD OF THE CITY : OF CLAIRTON, PA AND GEORGE : GLAGOLA, CITY OF CLAIRTON ZONING : OFFICER
Cited 0 timesPublishedNew Britain Borough School District
295 Pa. 478 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 1929
of judges: Minsinger v. … It involves a prohibition of interference with it”: McCafferty v. Guyer, 59 Pa. 109 , Ill. See also Page v. Allen, 58 Pa. 338 .
Cited 6 timesPublishedEgan v. USI Mid-Atlantic, Inc.
630 Pa. 649 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 2015
The issues, as stated by Petitioners, are: (1) When this Court held in Everhart v.
Cited 2 timesPublishedBeth. Area S.D. v. Bd. of Rev.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2020
PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT BETHLEHEM AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT : No. 66 MAL 2020 : : v … : Petition for Allowance of Appeal : from the Order of the : Commonwealth Court THE BOARD OF REVENUE
Cited 0 timesPublishedHome v. Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare
496 Pa. 204 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 1981
Smock v. Commonwealth, Pa. Cmwlth., 425 A.2d 883 (1981). This appeal followed. The Commonwealth Court dismissed appellant’s Complaint, holding that jurisdiction over the instant dispute was with the Board of Claims. … The Commonwealth Court, however, has held that the Board of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over all contractual claims, either expressed or implied. Children's Rehabilitation Center v.
Cited 3 timesPublishedWatrel v. Com., Dept. of Educ.
513 Pa. 61 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1986
“ ‘illegal, unenforceable, and void ab initio,’ Gramby v. … Watrel argues by analogy to this Court’s decision in Sterling v.
Cited 17 timesPublishedODC, Pet v. Michael Eric Greenberg
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 23, 2021
PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 2825 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 : Petitioner : No. 101 DB 2020 v … Respondent shall comply with all the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217 and pay costs to the Disciplinary Board. See Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).
Cited 0 timesPublished377 Pa. Super. 301 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 30, 1988
In DeWitt v. Kaiser, 335 Pa.Super. 258, 261-62 , 484 A.2d 121, 123 (1984), quoting Kleintop v. … Nitkiewicz v. Nitkiewicz, 369 Pa.Super. 504, 507 , 535 A.2d 664, 665 (1988) (citation omitted); Ruth v. Ruth, 316 Pa.Super. 282 , 462 A.2d 1351 (1983).
Cited 6 timesPublished390 Pa. 148 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 1957
The appellant’s quotation from Crumrine v. Washington County Housing Authority, 376 Pa. 234, 239 , 101 A. 2d 676 , which in turn was quoted from Beal v. … The court also noted the very wide disparity between the jury’s verdict and the amount of damages awarded by the board of viewers, saying, in this connection, that, “While the amount as found by the Board of View is not binding
Cited 30 timesPublished
Ask Donna