Case law

Dikeman v. Parrish

6 Pa. 210 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 1847

Justice Rogers, in Foster v. … v.

Tunnicliff v. COM., DEPT. OF PUBLIC WEL.

483 Pa. 275 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 1978

The cases in which this test was developed and applied are Good v. Wolgemuth, 15 Pa.Cmwlth. 524 , 327 A.2d 397 (1974); Wolgemuth v. Armacost, 18 Pa.Cmwlth. 394 , 336 A.2d 455 (1975); and St. Clair v. … To the extent that Wolgemuth v. Armacost, supra note 4, and St. Clair v.

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Adams v. Holleran

350 Pa. 461 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 1944

Cooper v. Roth, 140 Ohio 377 , 44 N. … And in Frazier v. Elmore (Tenn.), 173 S.

Syme v. Bankers National Life Insurance

400 Pa. 74 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 23, 1960

Brown, 327 Pa. 61 , 192 A. 876 , Zinsser v. Zinsser, 83 Pa. Superior Ct. 461 . In Ruzyc v. … Brown, the Court said: “The argument that plaintiffs’ attorneys have an interest in the judgment to the extent of their fee is without merit.

Malis v. Homer Building & Loan Ass'n

314 Pa. 321 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 1934

Defendant argues, however, that under a number of our recent decisions, citing Brown v. Victor Building Association, 302 Pa. 254 , Stone v. Schiller B. & L. Assn., supra, Sperling v. Euclid B. & L. … v.

In re Anonymous No. 90 D.B. 99

60 Pa. D. & C.4th 439 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 4, 2000

The board recommends that this suspension be made concurrent to the suspension imposed in the matter at nos. 5 D.B. 99 and 24 D.B. 99 on March 16,2000. V. … Board Member Scaricamazza did not participate in the February 2, 2000 adjudication.

Illig v. Chartiers Southern Railway Co.

268 Pa. 467 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 1920

This appropriation was originally made in pursuance of a resolution of the company’s board of directors passed in the City of Pittsburgh. … Corporations, 2d ed., vol. 2, sec. 1136; vide, also, Williams v.

In re Anonymous No. 73 D.B. 81

28 Pa. D. & C.3d 40 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 1983

DISCUSSION The hearing committee duly made its report to the board, following which this board, after an ex *43 tensive and complete review of the entire record in this matter, including the report, findings and recommendation … V.

In re Anonymous No. 23 D.B. 80

20 Pa. D. & C.3d 452 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 27, 1981

V. DISCUSSION The panel had no difficulty in accepting the following report of the hearing committee except as to the appropriate discipline in relation to the aforementioned detailed facts. … The Disciplinary Board adopts the hearing board’s findings of fact and conclusion of law.

In re Anonymous Nos. 89 D.B. 86 & 13 D.B. 88

3 Pa. D. & C.4th 234 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 1989

The matter was referred to this board for review and recommendation to your honorable court and was considered by this board on January 27, 1989. … Charge V • (10) The board finds that respondent'.did violate Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3) dealing with an attorney neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him When he failed to-respond to telephone messages left by [OJ, failed

Shelburne Sportswear, Inc. v. Philadelphia

422 Pa. 199 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1966

Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 21 Cal. 2d 524 , 133 P. 2d 400 (1943); Superior Coal Co. v. Department of Revenue, 4 Ill. 2d 459 , 123 N.E. 2d 713 (1954) ; Superior Coal Co. v. … Heinz Co. v. School District of Pittsburgh, 170 Pa. Superior Ct. 441 , 87 A. 2d 85 (1952). Tax Review Board v.

Cass v. Pittsburg, Virginia & Charleston Railway Co.

80 Pa. 31 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 29, 1876

The bona fides of the judgment of the board could not be tested by the event. … It was not offered to show by whom the representations were made, nor what they were, and it is clear, according to Custar v. Titusville Gas and Water Co., 13 P. F.

Beamer v. Stanley Co. of America

295 Pa. 545 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 28, 1928

The court below and the compensa *547 tion board found the deceased was not injured in the course of his employment. In principle, the case is ruled by Shoffler v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 290 Pa. 480 . … Tbe compensation board and tbe court below did not err in refusing compensation. Judgment affirmed.

Pearlman v. Pittsburgh

304 Pa. 24 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 1931

See Carroll v. Phila., 183 Pa. 55 . The term ‘lowest bidder’ necessarily implies that there must be a common standard open to all: Page v. King et al., 285 Pa. 153 ; Mazet v. Pittsburgh, 137 Pa. 548 . … Co. v. Allentown, 153 Pa. 319 .

Elliott v. Lindquist

356 Pa. 385 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1947

The Secretary of the Board of Directors shall notify all stockholders in writing of the proposed sale, or sale of any stock of said company,- at least twenty (20) days prior to any regular or special meeting of the Board … Ass’n. v. Guice, 27 Ala. App. 7, 165 So. 864 ; Bowler v. American Box Strap Co., 49 N. Y. S. 153; Soverign Camp W. O. W. v. Sabalza (Tex.) 93 S. W. 2d 177 ; Modern Woodmen v. Harper (Tex.) 94 S. W. 2d 157 ; Matthews v.

Piskanin, M., Aplt. v. Wetzel

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 2014

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Ex Rel:: No. 47 MAP 2013 Michael John Piskanin, Jr., : Appellant : v … : John Wetzel as secretary Pennsylvania : Department of Corrections; and : Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; : and Secretary and Board of Pennsylvania : Board of Probation and Parole

Williams v. Hazlep

14 Pa. 157 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 1850

It has been long settled that if the appellant pay the costs taxed by the prothonotary, the court will not strike off the appeal, although there afterwards appear to be more costs due: McKeown v. … Boudinot, 1 Brown 150 ; Fraley v. Nelson, 5 Ser. & R. 284; Stewart v. Jewell, 11 Ser. & R. 359.

Dowling v. Merchants Insurance

168 Pa. 234 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 20, 1895

Co. v. Cusick, 109 Pa. 157 ; Kister v. Lebanon Mutual Ins. Co., 128 Pa. 553 ; Meyers v. Ins. Co., 156 Pa. 420 . This case is much stronger for the plaintiff than those above cited. … The building insured was built for and used as a boarding house, and was erroneously described in the policy as “occupied by the insured as a dwelling only.”

Clark v. Monongahela Navigation Co.

10 Watts 364 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 1840

Co. v. Henderson, 8 Serg. & Rawle 219 , recognized in subsequent cases, the contract of subscription is void. … of managers of the company, in organizing and conducting the affairs of the same, so far as the said defect or irregularity may have proceeded from the neglect or omission of the said commissioners and board of managers,

Berner,et al v. Montour ZHB,et al Pet: Sponenberg

190 A.3d 593 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 1, 2018

WEBBER : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from v. … : the Order of the Commonwealth Court : MONTOUR TOWNSHIP ZONING : HEARING BOARD AND SCOTT : SPONENBERG :