Case law

Fairview Sch. Dist. v. COM. UNEM. COMP.

499 Pa. 539 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 1982

NOTES [1] Fairview School District v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 61 Pa. … See Borello v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 490 Pa. 607 , 417 A.2d 205 (1980); Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Sun Oil Co., 476 Pa. 589 , 383 A.2d 519 (1978); Philco Corporation v.

Robson v. Martin

291 Pa. 426 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 28, 1927

This requires us to consider the testimony upon which the finding of the referee and the compensation board is based. … If the deceased *433 was the servant of the defendant at the time, as held by the referee, board and court, and with which conclusion we agree, then compensation was properly awarded.

Snyder v. Reading School District

311 Pa. 326 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 1933

To reach a proper interpretation, the whole contract must be considered: Vulcanite Paving Co. v. Phila., 239 Pa. 524 ; Moran v. Bair, 304 Pa. 471 . … Such a recovery is warranted under the rule laid down in Dravo Contracting Co. v. Rees & Sons Co., 291 Pa. 387, 392 .

Commonwealth v. Lagana

510 Pa. 477 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 7, 1986

In Commonwealth v. Brown, 503 Pa. 514 , 469 A.2d 1371 (1983), this Court discussed the concept of collateral estoppel as it relates to criminal prosecutions. See also, Commonwealth v. … People v. Williams, 59 Ill.2d 557 , 322 N.E.2d 461 (1975). . State v. McCord, 402 So.2d 1147 (Fla.1981). .

Mercantile & Theatres Properties, Inc. v. Stanley Co. of America

346 Pa. 343 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 1942

Superior Ct. 5 , 12 A. 2d 810 ; Peoples-Pittsburgh Trust Co. v. Henshaw, 141 Pa. Superior Ct. 585 , 15 A. 2d 711 ; and by this court in Randal v. Jersey Mortgage Inv. Co., 306 Pa. 1 , 158 A. 865 ; Brown v. … The consent of the lessee was not necessary to the assignment: Bulger v. Wilderman & Pleet, supra, p. 180; Peoples-Pittsburgh Trust Co. v. Henshaw, supra, p. 588.

Berlin Smokeless Coal & Clay Co. v. Rohm

272 Pa. 24 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 1922

If this is so, then the conclusion that the agreement was unenforceable is correct, and the bill here filed was properly dismissed (Braunschweiger v. Waits, 179 Pa. 47 ; Browning v. Rodman, 268 Pa. 575 ; Delafant v. … Superior Ct. 186 ); and, under the well settled rules, the findings of fact are binding upon us unless manifest error appears: Cruzan v. Cruzan, 243 Pa. 165 ; McConville v. Ingham, 268 Pa. 507 .

Knox v. Flack

22 Pa. 337 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 1853

Here the error assigned is the fact of infancy, as it was in the cases just referred to, and so an error of fact was assigned in the case of Martin v. Ives, 17 Ser. & R. 364. … But these remedies are little used with us, though they are recognised as still existing; 1 W. & Ser. 438; 17 Ser. & R. 344; 11 Id. 274, 290 ; 1 Browne 82; 1 Miles 46 : and generally we arrive at the same result on motion

Lamar Advantage v. City of Pgh ZBA, Aplts.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 2021

Co. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Monroeville, 939 A.2d 994 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (“Monroeville”)). … See generally Fidler v.

Wolf v. Excelsior Automatic Scale & Supply Co.

270 Pa. 547 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 1921

R. v. Conway, 177 Pa. 364, 368 . … Daly, supra 335 ; Dock v. Schlichter Jute Cordage Co., 167 Pa. 370, 377 ; Beltz v.

Welker v. Hazen

247 Pa. 122 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 2, 1915

Justice Brown, Two juries have found that the appellant alienated the affection of appellee’s wife. On his appeal from the judgment entered against him on the first verdict he assigned twenty-six errors. … This was neither erroneous nor objectionable, but entirely proper, as it was intended to prevent the jury’s misapprehension of the point: Sopherstein v. Bertels, 178 Pa. 401 .

Insurance Co. of North America v. Commonwealth

87 Pa. 173 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 1878

It is evident in the outset the case is not governed by the principles settled in such cases as Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 418 ; Hays v. Steamship Co., 17 How. 596 ; Steamship Co. v. … The tax on a franchise is admitted to be lawful: Tonnage Tax Cases, 15 Wall. 277 ; Tax on Gross Receipts, Id. 294; Saving Society v. Coite, 6 Wall. 606 ; Osborn v. Bank United States, 9 Wheat. 859 ; Brown v.

In Re: Amendment of Rules 102, 104, 205, 206, 208, 209, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 301, 401 & 403 of PA Rules of Discipinary Enforcement & Rule 8.3 of Rules of Professional Conduct

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 2019

Note: In order to avoid the commingling of prosecutorial and adjudicative functions, which would be a violation of due process, see Lyness v. … by the Board, the [Secretary] Board shall notify the Supreme Court which shall appoint an Ad Hoc Disciplinary Board comprised of five former members of the Board who shall discharge the functions of the Board and have

Wiley v. Woods

393 Pa. 341 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 26, 1958

Town Board, 137 N.Y.S. 2d 474 , 476. 7 Emphasis supplied 8 In Commonwealth, ex rel. Biddle v. Walton, 6 Pa. Dist. … Milliken v. Board of Revision of Taxes, 23 Pa. Dist.

Second National Bank v. Hoffman

233 Pa. 390 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 2, 1912

Having failed to affirm it, the court *395 subsequently should have entered judgment for the plaintiff upon the whole record non obstante veredicto: Dalmas v. Kemble, 215 Pa. 410 ; Bond v. … Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 218 Pa. 34 ; Shannon v. McHenry, 219 Pa. 267 .

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Price

557 Pa. 166 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1999

We are not bound by the findings or recommendations of the Disciplinary Board, although we give them substantial deference. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Chung, 548 Pa. 108 , 695 A.2d 405 (1997). … In Office of Disciplinary Counsel v.

Pittsburgh No. 8 Coal Corp. v. Newcomer

365 Pa. 462 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1950

He has been its president since 1930, and a member of its board, of its board of directors since 1928. … Kinter v. Commonwealth Trust Co. et al., 274 Pa. 436 ; Riley v. Boynton Coal Co., et al., 305 Pa. 364 ; First National Bank v. Lytle Coal Co., et al., 332 Pa. 394 ; Barnes & Tucker Co. v. Fownes, et al., 334 Pa. 324 .”

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. James

534 Pa. 263 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 1993

ORDER PER CURIAM: AND NOW, this 17th day of August, 1993, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated June 30, 1993, it is hereby ORDERED that V. … It is further ORDERED that respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.

Appeal of Weldy

102 Pa. 454 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 1883

Nevertheless, such is the decision in Brown’s Appeal, and the reason for it, as there given, is, that as the legatees as well as the executors are appointed by the will, therefore the former cannot impose upon the latter … As to this, Weigand’s Appeal, 4 Ca. 471, is full in point, and the same doctrine is recognized in Hall v. Boyd, 6 Barr 270, and in Irwin’s Appeal, 11 Ca. 294.

Forepaugh v. Baker

10 Sadler 97 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 9, 1888

Watkinson v. Bank of Pennsylvania, 4 Whart. 482 , 34 Am. Dec. 521 ; Brown v. Clark, 14 Pa. 476 ; Clark v. Fletcher, 96 Pa. 416 .

Berke v. Bregman

406 Pa. 142 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 2, 1962

Osterling v. Frick, 284 Pa. 397, 401 , 131 Atl. 250 (1925). … Brown & Co. v. Raub, 357 Pa. 271, 287 , 54 A. 2d 35 (1947). Judgment affirmed.