Case law

ODC v. Lynch, William H., Jr.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 6, 2022

: Petitioner : No. 70 DB 2020 : : Attorney Registration No. 39874 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).

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.

Shapp v. Kilgohe

3 Serg. & Rawle 387 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 1817

In Brown v. Shaffer., (Chambersburg, September, 1814,) it was decided, that in a proceeding under the arbitration acts, a declaration is not essential; and in Hertzog v.

Gilmore v. Gilmore Drug Co.

279 Pa. 193 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 1924

Healy, 244 Pa. 427, 435 ; Commonwealth Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. Seltzer, 227 Pa. 410 . … He dominates a majority of the board of directors and all the directors who constitute the executive committee of the board. He determines and controls the business and operations of the company.

ODC v. William Scott Arnoult

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 2021

COUNSEL : No. 2839 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 : Petitioner : No. 93 DB 2021 : 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).

Phi Chi Fraternity T. U. Chapter Graduate Ass'n v. Philadelphia

317 Pa. 284 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 1935

L. 479, and its amendments, do not apply to a proceeding before the board of view. Appellant challenges the correctness of this decision. This case is ruled by Borsalino v. City of Reading, 111 Pa. … The board could not and did not attempt to settle any question of liability as between the city and the sureties on the contractor’s bond.

ODC v. Ivan Stewart DeVoren

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 1, 2021

: No. 2620 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 : Petitioner : No. 103 DB 2019 : 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).

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.

Commercial Bank v. Pleasants

6 Whart. 375 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 1841

Macalester found Cist sitting in his office in distress; he said he had lost a package of money enclosing one hundred thousand dollars; had missed it at the Schuylkill bank; thought he had seen it at his boarding-house that … I knelt down to look, but having just come in from the light, I could distinguish nothing but a piece of brown paper against the wall, and another piece on the sand.

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.

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).

In Re Perrone

587 Pa. 388 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 2006

In attorney disciplinary matters, we exercise de novo review, and we are not bound by the findings and recommendations of the Hearing Committee or the Disciplinary Board. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. … Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Keller, 509 Pa. 573 , 506 A.2d 872 (1986).

Moore, S. v. WCAB (Sunoco, Inc. (R&M))

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 27, 2018

Petitioner : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from : the Order of the Commonwealth Court v … : : : WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL : BOARD (SUNOCO, INC.

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 .

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.

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.

Commonwealth v. Overholt Co., Inc.

331 Pa. 182 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 9, 1938

In Cumberland Coal Co. v. Board of Revision of Tax Assessments, etc., 284 U. … In Colgate v. Hatrvey, State Tax Commissioner, 296 U.