Case law

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Garison v. Burke

378 Pa. 344 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1954

Marelia v. Burke, 366 Pa., supra, nevertheless, as Mr. Justice Jackson said in his concurring opinion in Brown v. Allen, Warden, 344 U. … See particularly Townsend v. Burke, Warden, 334 U. S. 736 and the recent United States Supreme Court cases of U. S. ex rel. Smith v. Baldi, 344 U. S. 561 ; Brown v. Allen, Warden, 344 U. S. 443 ; Speller v.

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).

CONSUMERS ED. & PROT. ASS'N v. Schwartz

495 Pa. 10 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 1981

McCreary v. Major, 343 Pa. 355 , 22 A.2d 686 (1941), a case in which members of the Beaver Falls city council appointed themselves to the Board of the Beaver Falls Municipal Authority. … McCreary v.

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.

Frey v. Stipp

224 Pa. 390 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 1909

In Luther v. Luther, 216 Pa. 1 , it was said by our Brother Brown: “The relief afforded by a decree in equity must conform to the case made out by the pleadings as well as to the proofs.

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.

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.

O'Neill v. United Ass'n of Journeymen Plumbers

348 Pa. 531 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 1944

See Acri et al. v. Bruscia et al., 265 Pa. 384 , 108 A. 717 ; Beeman v. Supreme Lodge S. of H., 215 Pa. 627 , 64 A. 792 ; Lodge No. 19 v. Svi Sveti et al., 323 Pa. 292 , 185 A. 650 ; Bogadek v. … See Rueb v. Rehder, 174 Pac. 992 (N. M.); Lo Bianco v. Cushing, 117 N. J. Eq. 593, 177 A. 102 ; Webster v. Rankins, 50 S. W. (2d) 746 (Mo.) ; 4 Am. Jur. Sec. 13.

Commonwealth v. Yobbagy

410 Pa. 172 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 1963

Burdell, 380 Pa. 43, 49 , 110 A. 2d 193 ; Benford v. … Strantz, 328 Pa. 33, 43 , 195 A. 75 ; Commonwealth v. Neff, 407 Pa. 1 , 179 A. 2d 630 ; Commonwealth v. Rosen, 141 Pa.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. James

79 Pa. D. & C.4th 107 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 4, 2005

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Goldin-Didinsky, 87 D.B. 2003, D.Bd. Rpt. 8/27/04 p. 13 (S.Ct. order 12/13/04). … Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ferleger, Nos. 104 D.B. 2004 and 51 D.B. 2004, 2005 WL 2219317 (Pa. Aug. 3, 2005).

ODC v. Angela E.M. Montgomery-Budd

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 9, 2021

COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : 2782 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Petitioner : : No. 29 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).

Hollis v. Widener

228 Pa. 466 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 1910

Justice Brown, On the first trial of this case the plaintiff was the only witness examined, and a nonsuit was entered. In holding that the court below had erred in refusing to take it off, we said, through Mr. … In Ireland and Scotland it is held otherwise, and the master is regarded as a vice principal: Ramsay v. Quinn, Irish Rep. 8 C. L. 322; Leddy v. Gibson, 11 Ct. Sess. Cases (3d Ser.), 304. In “The Osceola,” 189 U.

ODC, Pet v. Andrew S. Hurwitz

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 2022

COUNSEL, : No. 2848 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 : Petitioner : : No. 170 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).

Myers, G. v. Greenspan, J.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 2018

: PARTY, : : Petitioner : : : v … MILLER (CLERK : OF COURT) JOHN BELL#9144, RICHARD : BOVA#9228, JOHN ERRECHIO#0609, : FRANCIS PIERCE#9046, DAVID : BAKER#0612, LEDDIE BROWN#9951, : ALTHEA JONES#3663, KENNETH : MCKENNEY

Powelson v. United Traction Co.

204 Pa. 474 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 1903

As to steam cars such as Johnson v. West Chester, etc., R. R. … The judgment is reversed and a v. f. d. n. awarded.

Kuznik v. WESTMORELAND COUNTY BD. OF COM'RS

902 A.2d 476 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2006

Hetler, Charlene May Hetler, and Matthew Hetler, Appellees v. WESTMORELAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Westmoreland County Board of Elections and Pedro A. Coréts, Secretary of the Commonwealth, Appeal of Pedro A. … Office of Disciplinary Counsel v.

ODC, Pet v. Ephraim Tahir R. Mella

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 12, 2021

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 2759 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 : Petitioner : No. 96 DB 2019 : v … Respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board. See Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).

In the Matter of: Donald B. Moreman

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 2021

: No. 112 DB 2019 : Attorney Registration No. 47805 : : v. … Respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).

ODC, Pet v. Brittany Maire Yurchyk

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 27, 2021

: No. 2833 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 : Petitioner : No. 107 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).

Lockney v. Police Beneficiary Ass'n

217 Pa. 568 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1907

custom was sufficiently and clearly established so as to charge the appellee’s husband with notice of the assessment, was left by the learned court below for determination by the jury, and in this we see no error: McMasters v. … In order to establish the validity of a custom or usage it must have existed so long as to have become generally known, and it must be clearly and distinctly proved: Adams v. Pittsburg Insurance Company, 95 Pa. 348 .