Case law

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

Commonwealth v. Mezzanotti

219 Pa. 210 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 1907

Justice Brown, For the reasons appearing in the opinion herewith filed in Commonwealth v. Ramunno, ante, p. 204, this appeal is dismissed and the judgment below affirmed.

Slater v. Rimar, Inc.

462 Pa. 138 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 1975

See Middleburg v. Middleburg, 427 Pa. 114 , 233 A.2d 889 (1967); Seifert v. … Supp. 1352 (S.D.N.Y.1971), affirmed sub nom., Hall v. A. Corp., 453 F.2d 1375 (2d Cir. 1972); E. F. Hutton and Co. v. Brown, 305 F.Supp. 371, 376 (S.D.Tex.1969).

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.

Appeal of Kartorie

486 Pa. 500 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 10, 1979

The Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners denied the application because Ms. … A state board of bar examiners could hardly perform this important function.

Sunseri v. Sunseri

358 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1947

Co. v. Bank, 338 Pa. 139 , 12 A. 2d 40 ; Great Oak B. & L. v. … See Antone v.

In re Anonymous No. 49 D.B. 77

20 Pa. D. & C.3d 587 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 1981

The panel determined that the brief would not be stricken in its entirety, but that Sections III, IV and V of the brief be stricken. … Argument V is merely a conclusion reiterating the previous arguments and expresses puzzlement at the “frenetic resistance offered to the Reinstatement Petition.”

Eagen v. Smith

366 Pa. 501 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 1951

V, §25 and Art. Y, §16 of the Pennsylvania Constitution are self-executing. … See O’Neill v. White, 343 Pa. 96, 100 , 22 A. 2d 25 , where a provision, similar to that set forth in Art. V, §25, was held not to be self-executing.

Galant v. COM., DEPT. OF ENV. RES.

534 Pa. 17 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 26, 1993

Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 9 Pa.Commw. 176, 183, 305 A.2d 757, 761 (1973), quoting Kuca v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 268 Pa. 163, 166 , 110 A. 731, 732 (1920). See Misitis v. … board’s scope of review.

ODC v. Michael Groulx

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2015

THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 2209 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Petitioner : : No. 206 DB 2014 v … Respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).

Webster's Executors v. Newbold

41 Pa. 482 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 4, 1862

So in Groghegan v. Reed, 2 Wh. 152 , “nonresident” and beyond seas was replied to the plea of the statute. In Brown v. … Williams 144, and Brown v. Agnew, 6 W. & S. 238 .

Commonwealth v. Martin

534 Pa. 136 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 1993

Martin was directed to place his brown satchel on the ground. One of the detectives then directed the trained dog to perform a sniff search of Martin’s brown satchel. … As I stated in Florida v.

Cherry v. City of Philadelphia

547 Pa. 679 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 1997

. § 7541(c); 6 Penn Galvanizing Co. v. … In Lynch v. Owen J.

Kneebone, R. v. Lutz, P., Aplts.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2022

See Commonwealth v. … See Lomas v.

Commonwealth v. Ferretti

395 Pa. Super. 629 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 1990

The Court in Treftz wrote: The United States Supreme Court in Brown [v. … In the instant case, appellant Treftz fails to meet any of the Brown standards.

Dicken v. Southwest Pennsylvania Pipe Lines

223 Pa. 60 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 1909

Justice Brown, The decree of the Superior Court is affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the opinion this day filed in Davis v. The Southwest Pennsylvania Pipe Lines, ante, p. 56.

Sawyer v. Southwest Pennsylvania Pipe Lines

223 Pa. 60 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 1909

Justice Brown, The decree of the Superior Court is affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the opinion this day filed in Davis v. The Southwest Pennsylvania Pipe Lines, ante, p. 56.

ODC v. Mark B. Peduto

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2017

lN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVAN|A OFF|CE OF D|SC|PL|NARY COUNSEL, : No. 2190 Discip|inary DoCket No. 3 Petitioner : No. 75 DB 2015 v. : Attorney Registration No. 62923 |\/|ARK B. … Respondent sha|| pay the costs incurred loy the Discip|inary Board in the investigation and prosecution of this matter.

ODC v. Randal E. McCarney

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2016

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 2050 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Petitioner : : : No. 43 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.

Commonwealth ex rel. Brodhead v. Cochran

6 Binn. 456 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 28, 1814

Griffith v. The officers of the Land Office, that when the board of property acted in a judicial capacity, they might be commanded to proceed to a decision, but their decision could not be controlled. … It belongs to the board of property to decide, whether the persons under whose conveyances Mr.