Case law

Egan 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.

Douglass v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

209 Pa. 128 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 2, 1904

The proximate cause was the slipping on the foot board and the striking of the water gauge. … Watson, 116 Pa. 344 ; Hoag v. Lake Shore, etc., R. R. Co., 85 Pa. 293 .

Commonwealth v. Coontz

288 Pa. 74 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 1926

We make this clear in Com. v. Gardner, 282 Pa. 458 , and in Com. v. … In Com. v.

Crawford v. Redevelopment Authority

418 Pa. 549 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1965

We said, in Oliver v. Clairton, supra, p. 340: “. . . we said in Schenck v. … Schwartz v. Urban Redev. A. of Pgh., supra; Felt v. Hope, 416 Pa. 118 , 206 A. 2d 621 (1964).

Green v. Commonwealth

603 Pa. 132 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 2009

AND NOW, this 18th clay of November, 2009, the April 2, 2009 Order of the Commonwealth Court granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Board of Probation and Parole is VACATED. See Miami National Bank v.

Commonwealth v. O'Bryant

320 Pa. Super. 231 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 1983

In Commonwealth v. … In support of that conclusion, the lower court cites Commonwealth v. Brown, 473 Pa. 458 , 375 A.2d 331 (1977).

R. S. Noonan, Inc. v. York School District

400 Pa. 391 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1960

Snyder v. Mitchell, 82 Pa. 343 , that a disappointed bidder has sustained no personal injury which entitles him to redress in court. … Co., Inc. v. Kohler, 366 Pa. 72 , in support of its position.

Commonwealth v. Commonwealth

528 Pa. 472 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 1991

Any arbitration award would ultimately be subject to review by the Board, whose own determination may in turn be appealed to the Commonwealth Court. Pennsylvania Social Services Local 668 v. … In East Pennsboro Area School District v.

Commonwealth v. Morris

368 Pa. Super. 237 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 1987

The brown shirt, the subject of the first warrant, as well as the jeans and boots were seized. … Commonwealth v. Melilli, supra, 361 Pa.Superior Ct. at 440, 522 A.2d at 1112 .

ODC v. Erik Benjamin Cherdak

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 2022

COUNSEL, : No. 2912 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 : Petitioner : : No. 50 DB 2021 v … Respondent shall comply with the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217 and pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).

Belmonte v. Connor

263 Pa. 470 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 1919

Per Curiam, The only question before the referee and the compensation board, which was one of fact, was as to the relation which the husband of the appellee sustained to the appellant at the time he was killed. … The finding of the board was that he was an employee, and not an independent contractor, as the defendant contended. This finding is conclusive: Messinger v. Lehigh Valley E. B. Co., 261 Pa. 336 .

Mooney v. Lehigh Valley Railroad

261 Pa. 339 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 6, 1918

(2) “Was the grant of a hearing de novo as aforesaid merely an interlocutory order of the board, from which there could be no appeal?” … In McCauley v.

Victory Gardens, Inc. v. Warrington Twp

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 2020

: No. 51 MAL 2020 : : v. … : No. 69 MAL 2020 : : v.

In Re: Amendments of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct and the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 2014

If the response to the rule to show cause raises issues of fact, the [Chairman of the] Board Chair may direct that a hearing be held before a member of the Board who shall submit a report to the Board upon the … (v) Every business operating account maintained or utilized by the attorney in the practice of law during the same time period specified in subparagraph (iii).

Commonwealth v. Williams

275 Pa. 58 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1922

Fox’s story of what occurred when be reached bis boarding bouse that night at 1:30 a. m. is no better. … Fox gives as the reason for his ability to so readily point out the hiding place of the flash light that there was only one lumber pile in the yard, yet Officer Brown, now sheriff, says: “Q.

Beggy v. Deike

413 Pa. 74 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 1963

See Strong v. Repide, 218 U.S. 419, 425 (1909); Binns v. Copper Range Co., 335 Pa. 257 , 6 A. 2d 895 (1939); Imbrie v. Community Loan Co., 131 Pa. Superior Ct. 398 , 200 Atl. 149 (1938). … Deike Chairman of the Board” .

Lasater v. Conestoga Traction Co.

306 Pa. 500 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 1932

In Hauenstein v. … In Lyons et ux. v. Pitts. Rys.

Suburban Water Co. v. Oakmont Borough

268 Pa. 243 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 1920

A. 1915 C. 282 , 287, where it is stated that “it will be conclusively presumed that the parties contracted in contemplation of the power of the proper board or tribunal to fix the rate in every case where such power exists … A. 1915, C. 261, 273; Browne v. Turner, 176 Mass. 9 ; Union Dry Goods Co. v. Georgia Pub. S. Corporation, 83 S. E. 946 , 248 U. S. 372 ; Portland R. L. & P. Co. v. Portland, 200 Federal 890; Bullard v.

In Re Berkhimer

593 Pa. 366 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2007

. *370 In June, 2004, the Judicial Conduct Board charged appellant under Article V, § 18 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. 3 The Board’s complaint consisted of two parts. … V, § 18(c)(2); In re Melograne, 571 Pa. 490 , 812 A.2d 1164, 1166 (2002).

Bedford Railroad v. Bowser

48 Pa. 29 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 1864

After it was made he had contributed to involve his co-corporators in the venture, encouraged the creation of debts, and it was no longer for him do deny his liability to pay ins own subscription: McConahy v. … It certainly-was not in Lauman v. The Lebanon Valley Railroad Company, 6 Casey 42, nor in any of the cases cited by the defendant in error. It is neither supported by authority or reason.