Case law

Delaware River Port Authority v. Thornburgh

508 Pa. 11 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 1985

Jurisdiction over matters arising exclusively out of contractual or quasi-contractual claims against the Com *17 monwealth lies in the Board of Claims. 3 Xpress Truck Lines, Inc. v. … Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 503 Pa. 399 , 469 A.2d 1000 (1983); Ezy Parks v. Larson, 499 Pa. 615 , 454 A.2d 928 (1982).

Damiani v. Lobasco

367 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 1951

This Court has said, however,' in Rynd v. … See Brown v. Southern Ry. Co., 187 Fed. 481 , 39 Words and Phrases, p. 120.

ODC v. William J. Kerins

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 2015

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 2223 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Petitioner : : No. 205 DB 2014 v … Respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 208(g). Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the decision of this matter.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Rainone

590 Pa. 15 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2006

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Karen G. Muir, 577 Pa. 536 , 847 A.2d 660 (2004) (three month suspension); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. John T. … In short, based on the record presented to the Board, we are persuaded that disbarment is the appropriate sanction. *35 V.

Cole, C. v. DEP; Apl of: Adelphia Gateway

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2025

: Environmental Hearing Board dated : October 9, 2019 at No. 2019-046-L. … As the Third Circuit explained in Township of Bordentown, New Jersey v.

Scranton Gas & Water Co. v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad

225 Pa. 152 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 1909

Carnegie Company, 204 Pa. 459 ; Rudolph v. Schuylkill Railroad Company, 166 Pa. 430 ; Gaw v. Bristol, etc., R. R. Co., 196 Pa. 442 ; Oliver v. Thompson’s Run Bridge Company, 197 Pa. 344 . … In this case the board determined that the proposed change is necessary for the purposes indicated in the act, and that is conclusive of the matter: Wilson v. Pittsburg, etc., Railroad Company, 222 Pa. 541 .

Good v. Pennsylvania Department of Property & Supplies

346 Pa. 151 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 1942

See Ferraro v. Pgh. Term. Coal Corp., 142 Pa. … The instant case is ruled by Crispin v.

Paolucci, E. v. UCBR, Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 25, 2016

v. : 2012 dated 6/19/15 reversing the order : of the Unemployment Compensation : Board of Review at No. … B-11-09-D-E708 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION : dated 5/22/12 BOARD OF REVIEW, : : Appellant : ARGUED: May 11, 2016

Stauffer v. Penn Mutual Fire Ins. Assn. of Lancaster Co.

164 Pa. 199 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1894

Co., 153 Pa. 257 ; Hook v. Mutual Ins. Co., 160 Pa. 229 . … In Mentz v. Fire Ins.

Wright, J. v. Lower Salford Twp

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 2, 2016

WRIGHT : No. 294 MAL 2016 : : v. … : : PETITION OF: LOWER SALFORD : TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL POLICE : PENSION FUND, LOWER SALFORD : TOWNSHIP BOARD

ODC v. Edward Charles Malloy, III

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 2016

No. 3 : Petitioner : No. 178 DB 2014 : : Attorney Registration No. 82674 v … Respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 208(g). Justices Donohue and Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Taylor v. Haverford Township

299 Pa. 402 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 1930

See Dempsey’s Est., 288 Pa. 458, 460 ; Leafgreen v. LaBar, 293 Pa. 263, 264 ; Lyman v. Lyman, 293 Pa. 490, 495-6 ; Ladner v. … Hirsh v.

Land Title & Trust Co. v. Rambo

174 Pa. 566 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 1896

This, we held in Sheets v. Wynkoop, 74 Pa. 204 , in construing almost the same words in the act of 1861, only means that the soldier is exempt when actually mustered into active service in suppressing the rebellion.

ODC v. James Allen Steiner

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2015

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 1965 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Petitioner : : No. 103 DB 2013 v … It is further ORDERED that Respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).

Lee, K., Aplt. v. PA Bd. of Prob. and Parole

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2014

v. … : : : COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE : AND MICHAEL POTTEIGER, : CHAIRMAN, COMMONWEALTH OF : PENNSYLVANIA

Noble v. Thompson Oil Co.

69 Pa. 409 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 1871

And even had they been served the plea would be bad according the opinion of Justice Strong in Brown v. Scott, 1 P. F. … Brown et al, was not material to the cause.

Fumo v. State Real Estate Commission

512 Pa. 58 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 1986

The issue presented by the Appellant was addressed by this Court in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State Board of Nurse Examiners v. Kathryn A. Kindle, R.N, 512 Pa. 44 , 515 A.2d 1342 (1986). … This Court noted, however, that it was not until our recent decision in Weinberg v.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Burd

71 Pa. D. & C.4th 560 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 2, 2004

V. RECOMMENDATION The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania unanimously recommends that the respondent, *570 Amy B. Burd, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day. … Board Member Nordenberg did not participate in the September 27,2004 adjudication.

Bell v. Reed

4 Binn. 127 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 1810

The vessel met with a violent gale of wind, in the course of which she was driven on the rocks near Point Abino, foundered, and every soul on board perished. … J. in Hart v. Allen, 2 Watts 116 et seq.]

Dickey v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. R.

297 Pa. 172 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 1929

The referee disallowed compensation, it was reversed by the board, and the court below in return reversed the board and sustained the finding of the referee. We said in Shoffler v. … V. Coal Co., 278 Pa. 84 ; Pokis v. Buck Run Coal Co., 286 Pa. 52 ; Shoffler v. L. V. Coal Co., supra), it cannot be given the broad interpretation here suggested.