Case law

ODC, Pet v. Christopher P. Flannery

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 2022

: : No. 59 DB 2022 Petitioner : : Attorney Registration No. 75426 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).

Ingram v. Pittsburgh

346 Pa. 45 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1942

Superior Ct. 508 ; Commonwealth v. Bone, 64 Pa. Superior Ct. 44 . Moreover, the stenographer must testify as to the integrity of his or her notes and the transcript thereof: Commonwealth v. … That statute, as was said by this Court, in Freedman v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.

York v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

449 Pa. 136 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 1972

Blank v. Board of Adjustment, 390 Pa. 636, 640 , 136 A. 2d 695 .’ … See, e.g., Borough of Susquehanna Depot v. Oanawaota Water Supply do., 35 P.U.C. Decisions 411 (19 ) ; Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. North Penn Gas Co., 25 P.U.C.

Kessler v. Berger

205 Pa. 289 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 1903

In Commonwealth v. … Justice Clakk, in North Manheim Township v.

Thompson v. Carpenter

4 Pa. 132 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 1846

v. … The distinction is taken in Fildes v. Hooker, 3 Mad. Rep. 193, in order to reconcile that case to Halsey v. Grant, 13 Ves. 75, and Horniblow v.

In re Anonymous No. 19 D.B. 76

8 Pa. D. & C.3d 400 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 1976

[Anonymous], II, No. 74 Disciplinary Docket No. 1 (No. 43 D.B. 73) (public censure); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. … [Anonymous], II, No. 94 Disciplinary Docket No. 1 (No. 39 D.B. 74) (public censure); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v.

ODC v. David Addison Grant Murray

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2023

: No. 2939 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 : Petitioner : : No. 3 DB 2023 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).

Havens, W. v. WCAB (CNA Financial Corp)

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2018

Petitioner : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from : the Order of the Commonwealth Court v … Petitioner : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from : the Order of the Commonwealth Court v

Johnston v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad

245 Pa. 338 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 18, 1914

once to secure an ascertainment of damages, but until such act neither can do so; for no right to damages vests in or accrues to the owner until there has been an appropriation of his property by the corporation: Davis v. … Co. v. Railroad Co., 141 Pa. 407 .

Halko v. Foster Township School District

374 Pa. 269 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 1953

Cartwright v. Cartwright, 350 Pa. 638, 644 , 40 A. 2d 30 . … Therefore when the plaintiff was absent for three consecutive years without statutory authority, his seniority rights began only when he was reemployed by the board, to wit, September 1,1945.

Commonwealth v. American Steel & Wire Co.

207 Pa. 309 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 1904

Justice Brown, This case was argued with Commonwealth v. Danville Bessemer Company, May term, 1903, No. 8, and, in view of what we have said in the opinion in that case, this day filed, the judgment is affirmed.

Stiner v. Commonwealth

524 Pa. 468 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 11, 1990

Case remanded to the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board for further medical testimony in accordance with the standard expressed in McCloskey v. … Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 501 Pa. 93 , 460 A.2d 237 (1983); see also, Musiolowski v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 524 Pa. 246 , 570 A.2d 1319 (1990), J-65-1990, slip opinion filed March 21, 1990.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Jurikson

66 Pa. D. & C.4th 217 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 2003

V. RECOMMENDATION The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania unanimously recommends that the respondent, Mark Jurikson, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day. … Board Members Cunningham and Stewart recuse themselves in this matter. Board Member Sheerer did not participate in the May 14, 2003 adjudication.

Jefferson County v. Rose Township

283 Pa. 126 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 17, 1925

Co. v. Ayr, 31 Pa. Superior Ct. 356 ; Good Roads M. Co. v. Union Township, 34 Pa. Superior Ct. 538 ; Harshman v. Dunbar Township, 11 Pa. Superior Ct. 638 . … Brown, 210 Pa. 29 ; Com. ex rel. Schrier v. Ruggles et al., 280 Pa. 571 ; Com. v. Railroad, 164 Pa. 252 ; Malloy v. Reinhard, 115 Pa. 25 . But to that general rule there are exceptions.

O'Hara v. Richardson

46 Pa. 385 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 1864

But it was a matter of discretion, and not the subject of error: Spence v. Spence, 4 Watts 165 ; Hamilton v. Glenn, 1 Barr 340. … Miller v. Shaw, 7 S. & R. 129, which confined the party to his possessio pedis, is no longer authority, but it serves to mark the progress and state of the law, as it is now held, in reference to woodland. Roger v.

In re Anonymous No. 28 D.B. 78

28 Pa. D. & C.3d 760 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 1984

The board unanimously concurred in this recommendation. V. … The board also recommends that the Supreme Court direct that all necessary expenses incurred by the board in the investigation and processing of the petition for reinstatement be borne by and paid for by petitioner.

Nether Providence Township School Authority v. Thomas M. Durkin & Sons, Inc.

505 Pa. 42 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 31, 1984

Morgan; Brobst v. Reading, 236 Pa. 629 , 85 A. 65 (1912); Silsby Manufacturing Company v. Allentown, 153 Pa. 319 , 26 A. 646 (1893); Malone v. Philadelphia, 147 Pa. 416 , 23 A. 628 (1892); City v. … Hays, 93 Pa. 72 (1881); McKnight v. Pittsburgh, 91 Pa. 273 (1879); Hague v. Philadelphia, 48 Pa. 527, 529 (1865); Lehigh County v. Kleckner, 5 Watts & Serg. 181, 186 (1843).

Epler v. North American Rockwell Corp.

482 Pa. 391 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 1978

Vardzel v. Dravo Corporation, 402 Pa. 19 , 165 A.2d 622 (1962); Ingersoll-Rand Company v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 12 Pa. Cm with. 502, 316 A.2d 673 (1974); Shaffer v. … Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, supra.

Byers v. Vargo

389 Pa. 365 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 27, 1957

Pummer, 388 Pa. 592 , 131 A. 2d 375 ; Mozino v. Canuso, 384 Pa. 220 , 120 A. 2d 300 ; Edelson v. Ochroch, 380 Pa. 426 , 111 A. 2d 455 ; Wilt v. Blazier, 382 Pa. 143 , 114 A. 2d 111 ; Foster v. … In a decision filed today in the case of Kiser v.

Short v. Gilson

107 Pa. 315 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 10, 1884

Unless appealed from the settlement is conclusive : Porter v. School Directors, 6 Harris 144; Brown v. White Deer Township, 3 Casey 109; Dyer v. Covington Township, 4 Id. 186. … The Auditors cannot re-examine the accounts of a previous year: Leasure v. Mahoning Township, 8 Watts 551 . This case is a settlement of the Supervisors’ account for 1879.