Case law

ODC, Pet v. Anthony Charles Mengine

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 26, 2019

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 2656 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 : Petitioner : No. 66 DB 2017 : v … Respondent shall comply with all the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217 and pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).

In the Matter of: Michael Andrew Rabel

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 2016

C4-13-299, : C4-13-447, C4-13-850, C4-13-885, C4-14- v. … It is further ordered that Respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).

Dechter v. Kaskey

379 Pa. Super. 45 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 1988

This resolution ignores the clear intent of the parties to this dispute and is contrary to the principles enunciated in Brown v. Hall, 495 Pa. 635 , 435 A.2d 859 (1981), Millstein v. … Millstein, 311 Pa.Super. 495 , 457 A.2d 1291 (1983), and McGough v. McGough, 361 Pa.Super. 391 , 522 A.2d 638 (1987). As I have opined at length in this case’s companion, Bonder v.

Commonwealth v. Emerick

373 Pa. 388 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1953

Thus the legislature has created, inter alia, the Public Service Commission, the Workmen’s Compensation Board, the Board of Moving Picture Censors, and the Liquor Con *393 trol Board. … Uniformly the federal Supreme Court has upheld the power of the state to confer discretionary powers upon such administrative officers or boards: Davis v. Mass., 167 U. S. 43 ; Wilson v. Eureka City, 173 U.

Consolidated Gas Co. v. Pittsburgh

211 Pa. 489 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 1905

Justice Brown, The tax which the city of Pittsburgh would collect from this appellee is an unauthorized property tax, and, for the reason given in the opinion in Pittsburgh Railways Company v.

ODC v. Jeff Foreman

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 2014

THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 1543 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Petitioner : : No. 164 DB 2009 v … It is further ORDERED that respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa. R.D.E.

Duffee v. Bankers' Surety Co.

247 Pa. 17 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 2, 1915

Justice Brown, The narrow question involved in this appeal is whether an agent exceeded his authority under a written power of attorney. … McPherson, 199 Pa. 331 ; Buckman v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company, 232 Pa. 351 .

Swade v. SPRINGFIELD TWP. ZONING BD. OF A.

392 Pa. 269 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 1958

392 Pa. 269 (1958) Swade, Appellant, v. Springfield Township Zoning Board of Adjustment. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued January 7, 1958. … KNIGHT: "The facts are fully set forth in the findings of the Board of Adjustment and the hearing judge and it is unnecessary to repeat them here.

Post v. Mendel

510 Pa. 213 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 1986

In Kemper v. … In The King v.

ODC v. Hopkin T. Rowlands, Jr.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 2015

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 2112 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Petitioner : : No. 115 DB 2013 v … It is further ORDERED that respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E. The Motion to Reopen the Record is DENIED.

RTC Mortgage Trust 1994-N-2 v. Fry

556 Pa. 603 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 19, 1999

In Mennonite Board of Missions v. … United States v.

ODC v. Gina Yvonne Mosley

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 18, 2016

: Petitioner : No. 181 DB 2014 : : Attorney Registration No. 209192 v … Respondent shall file quarterly written reports with the Secretary of the Board and shall attach reports verifying the above counseling and treatment.

McLeod v. Central Normal School

152 Pa. 575 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 1893

On the other hand, in Girard Point Storage Co. v. … Com’rs v. Railroad Co., 63 Me. 269 ; State v. R. R. Co., 29 Conn. 538 ; N. Y. Cent. etc. Co. v. N. Y. etc. Co., 9 Am. & Eng. R.

Harris Calorific Co. v. Marra

345 Pa. 464 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 1942

Brown, 304 Pa. 545 , 156 A. 168 ) and that the burden is on him who sets up unreasonableness as.the basis of illegality as a defense in a suit to enforce a contract “to show how and why it is unlawful” (Holland v. … Brown, supra, p. 548; Harbison-Walker R. Co. v. Stanton, 227 Pa. 55, 63 , 75 A. 988 ).

Hood v. Norton

202 Pa. 119 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 1902

Justice Brown, Tbe questions raised on this appeal have been considered and *120 passed upon in the case of Hood to the use of McCloskey v. Albert E.

In re Anonymous No. 66 D.B. 82

26 Pa. D. & C.3d 515 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 24, 1983

That appeal was captioned Commonwealth v. [A], No. 1428, [ ] term 1981. (Respondent’s answer to petition, paragraph no. 7.) 6. The record from the trial court was filed with the Superior Court on November 17, 1981. … Accordingly, the recommendation of hearing committee [ ] is accepted and adopted by this board, which recommends the imposition of a public censure upon respondent by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. V.

Miron, T., Aplt. v. Delaware Cty. Tax Claim Bur

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 2025

of Missions v. … v. Lancaster County Tax Claim Bureau, 470 A.2d 938 (Pa. 1983)?1 Having read the parties’ briefs and heard their arguments, I join the decision to dismiss this appeal as improvidently granted.

Fountain Hill Underwear Mills v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers' Union of America

393 Pa. 385 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1958

In Wortex Mills, Inc. v. … However, even if we assume that the National Labor Relations Board does have jurisdiction over the controversy in question, this does not per se deny state action in all cases. In Wilkes Sportswear, Inc. v.

ODC v. Jonathan F. Altman

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 2020

In determining the appropriate discipline, the Board considered Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Edwin L. … The Board also considered Office of Disciplinary Counsel v.

In re Anonymous No. 6 D.B. 80

22 Pa. D. & C.3d 490 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 1982

Such other conditions of probation as the board may see fit to impose. … Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. [ ], no. 24 D.B.80.