Case law

Sicilia, V. v. API Roofers Adv. Program (WCAB)

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2024

In Duffey v. … In Protz v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Derry Area School District), 124 A.3d 406 (Pa.

In re Anonymous No. 46 D.B. 93

60 Pa. D. & C.4th 572 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2001

This matter was adjudicated by the Disciplinary Board at the meeting of August 2, 2000. II. … For the reasons set forth above, the board recommends that the petition for reinstatement be granted. V.

Delta Coal Co. v. Monongahela Navigation Co.

194 Pa. 56 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1899

Justice Brown, The sole question involved in this appeal has been considered and passed upon in the case of Monongahela Navigation Company v. John A. Wood and Samuel L. Wood, doing business as John A.

Lakeland Joint School District Authority v. Scott Township School District

414 Pa. 451 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 27, 1964

(joint board), initially composed of all members of the participating school district boards. … Justice Musmanno’s opinion in Mellinger v. Kuhn, 388 Pa. 83, 84, 86 , 130 A. 2d 154 ; as to an action in equity for specific performance, see Mr. Chief Justice Bell’s opinion in Mrahunec v.

Association of Pennsylvania State College & University Faculties v. Commonwealth

496 Pa. 315 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 1981

Ill, §§ 24, 31; Franklin County Prison Board v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 491 Pa. 50 , 417 A.2d 1138 (1980). … Commonwealth v. Young, 456 Pa. 102, 115 , 317 A.2d 258, 264 (1974); McCaffrey v. Pittsburgh Athletic Association, 448 Pa. 151, 162 , 293 A.2d 51, 57 (1972). .

Zavodnick v. Rose Son

297 Pa. 86 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1929

We have uniformly held that unnecessarily standing on the running board of an electric car or on its platform or on that of a steam railway car was contributory negligence. Speaking for the court, in Thane v. … While in Schomaker v.

Kleinbard, LLC, Aplt. v. Lancaster Co. DA

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 2024

Attorney must obtain authorization from the Board, which Stedman never sought. … Id. at 13-14. 12 Kleinbard LLC v. Office of District Attorney of Lancaster Cnty., 2023 WL 3065855, at *4 (Pa. Cmwlth.

Bowfin KeyCon Hldgs. v. DEP

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2023

: : : PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF : ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND : PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL : QUALITY BOARD … See Mamula v.

Lackawanna Co. v. Commonwealth

156 Pa. 477 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 1893

In Luzerne County v. … The board in adopting the resolution in question attempted to settle a dispute between two counties.

McGinley v. Milk & Ice Cream Salesmen

351 Pa. 47 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 1944

We said, in Quinn Coal Co. v. Scranton A. C. … Nothing but clear error would warrant such action on our part, and it does not appear here: Cruzan v. Cruzan, 243 Pa. 165 , 89 A. 876 ; Heffernan v. Heffernan, 344 Pa. 137 , 23 A. 2d 424 .” Decrees affirmed.

Bleight v. Manufacturers' & Mechanics' Bank

10 Pa. 131 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 1848

To the same purport is the case of Evans v. Kingsberry, 2 Rand. 120 . … That the legal estate is outstanding is nothing, and partition may be made notwithstanding, as is ruled in Willing v. Brown, 7 S. & R. 467. Judgment affirmed.

Tide Coal Co. v. Monongahela Navigation Co.

194 Pa. 54 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1899

Justice Brown, The sole question involved in this appeal has been considered and passed upon in the case of Monongahela Navigation Company v. John A. Wood and Samuel L. Wood, doing business as John A.

Hood v. Norton

202 Pa. 120 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 1902

Justice Brown, The questions raised on this appeal have been considered and passed upon in the case of Hood to the use of McCloskey v. Albert E.

Spagnol v. Pennsylvania R. R.

279 Pa. 205 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 1924

the cars: MacGiloray v. … Superior Ct. 524 ); nor for the negligent or wilful act of another, unless given an opportunity to prevent it: Widener v. P. R. T. Co., 224 Pa. 171 ; Kantner v. P. & R. Ry. Co., 236 Pa. 283 ; Wood v. P. R. T.

Strausz v. McKeesport

316 Pa. 277 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 1934

Justice Schaffer, This is an appeal from the award of a board of viewers assessing damages for change of grade of the street in front of plaintiffs’ property. … In Frick v. Phila., 60 Pa.

In re Anonymous No. 32 D.B. 77

9 Pa. D. & C.3d 451 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 1978

and was informed that the board chairman would not allow any continuance. … Respondent was retained to represent [C] and his mother and father and to present a defense in their behalf in the matter of [¶] v. C] of 1972 in the Court of Common Pleas of [ ] County.

ODC v. Donald B. Corriere

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 2015

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 2172 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Petitioner : : No. 182 DB 2014 v … Respondent shall pay costs incurred by the Disciplinary Board in the investigation and prosecution of this matter.

In re Anonymous No. 75 D.B. 92

27 Pa. D. & C.4th 213 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 1995

The matter was adjudicated by the board on October 21, 1994. II. … Finally, the board also notes that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel did not oppose petitioner’s reinstatement. Therefore, as a result of all evidence before us, the board recommends that petitioner be reinstated. V.

Clark v. Martin

49 Pa. 299 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1865

holds it in trust for his vendee, and will be decreed to convey it to his use, and equally clear is it that if a vendee mortgage his title, the perfection of the title by the vendor enures to the benefit of the mortgagee: Brown … v.

In Re Steinsapir

392 Pa. Super. 355 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 6, 1990

Presbytery of Beaver-Butler v. Middlesex, 507 Pa. 255, 266 , 489 A.2d 1317, 1323 (1985); McKeesport Beer Distributors, Inc. v. All Brand Importers, Inc., 390 Pa.Super. 627, 630-632 , 569 A.2d 951, 953 (1990). … Our review of the trust agreement convinces us that a temporary vacancy on the board would not interrupt operations since the board is large and the settlor adequately provided for temporary vacancies.