Case law

School District v. Gym

42 Pa. D. & C.5th 459 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Sep 26, 2014

Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 75 A.3d 453, 455 (Pa. 2013). … Gaming Control Board, 48 A.3d at 507 . I.

Philadelphia Transportation Co. v. Transport Workers Union, Local 234

83 Pa. D. & C. 332 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Dec 16, 1952

unless a satisfactory letter providing for a 30-day cooling-off period was received, defendant Quill delivered to plaintiff a letter dated January 19, 1951, which read as follows: “I have been authorized by the Executive Board … Prod., Inc., v. Amer. Insul. Co., 104 Pa. Superior Ct. 469, 473 ; Vitro Manufacturing Co. v. Standard Chemical Co., 291 Pa. 85 .

Hardy v. City of Philadelphia

66 Pa. D. & C.2d 71 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jun 11, 1974

In the recent case of Ayala v. … Bellone, 379 Pa. 483 , 108 A. 2d 754 (1954); Cavey, to use, v. Bethlehem, 331 Pa. 556 , 1 A. 2d 653 (1938); Mashinsky v. Philadelphia, 333 Pa. 97 , 3 A. 2d 790 (1939).

In re Salus

22 Pa. D. & C. 565 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 15, 1935

The board of governors of the bar association accordingly authorized the appointment of such a committee. … See State of New York, ex rel., v. Culkin, 248 N. Y. 465 , 60 A. L. R. 851.

Gilbert v. Cogan

8 Pa. D. & C.3d 322 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Mar 22, 1978

of Educ. v. … No. 3, 464 Pa. 92, 95, n. 2 , 346 A. 2d 35, 37 (1975); Zakian v. Liljestrand, 438 Pa. 249 , 264 A. 2d 638 (1970).

Musical Fund Society

73 Pa. D. & C.2d 115 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Nov 24, 1975

Fontain v. Ravenel, supra. … In a landmark decision: Commonwealth v.

In re Philadelphia Electric Co.

39 Pa. D. & C. 53 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jun 24, 1940

Compare Germantown Trust Co. v. Powell, 265 Pa. 71 (1919), with Commonwealth v. Dollar Savings Bank, supra. … See Security Savings Bank v. State of California, 263 U. S. 282 (1923), and Germantown Trust Co. v. Powell, supra.

Todd v. Sablosky

36 Pa. D. & C. 22 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jul 12, 1939

In Walker v. Brewster, 5 L. R. Eq. … The restrictions themselves as well as the law (Ladner et al. v.

Individual Dairies, Inc. v. Milk Control Commission

51 Pa. D. & C. 56 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · May 26, 1944

A great deal of the discussion was directed to the validity of this regulation, it being argued on behalf of appellant that this somehow changed the rules of evidence, which the board had no authority to do. … However, this may not be the best policy to pursue, and it is perhaps better for the commission to follow the ruling in Devlin v. Milk Control Commission, 154 Pa.

Davies v. Harrison

3 Pa. D. & C. 481 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jul 17, 1923

In Thackara v. … In Board of Charities v.

David Magen Builder, Inc. v. Wilson

34 Pa. D. & C. 461 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jul 2, 1938

As was pointed out in the Heubner decision, at page 35, Taylor v. … Attention is directed to the part of the Huebner opinion which reads, “there may be particular circumstances of hardship or of necessity that, if established, would allow the board to grant a permit for nonconforming uses

Wilson v. McHale

61 Pa. D. & C. 444 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 26, 1947

And in Novy et al. v. … The above acts were passed, and Lohr’s Estate was decided, after the cases cited by petitioners, even should they be considered applicable on the facts: Brown v. McCullough, 60 Pa. Superior Ct. 98 (1915); Weiskircher v.

Wong v. First Union National Bank

69 Pa. D. & C.4th 516 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Nov 24, 2004

Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, the court stated, “The inherent differences between an arbitration panel on the one hand, and courts and administrative agencies on the other, well explain the logic behind the distinction … Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 528 Pa. 472, 480-81 , 598 A.2d 1274, 1278 (1991). (citation omitted) . Langston v. National Media Corp., 420 Pa. Super. 611, 616 , 617 A.2d 354, 356 (1992). .

22 Front Street LLC v. Gorodetzer

30 Pa. D. & C.5th 353 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jun 4, 2013

Bochetto v. Gibson, 580 Pa. 245 , 860 A.2d 67 (Pa. 2004), quoting Post v. Mendel, 510 Pa. 213 , 507 A.2d 351, 355 (1986). . Id. . Greenberg v. Aetna Ins. … Pawlowski v. Smorto, 403 Pa. Super. 71, 80 , 588 A.2d 36, 41 (1991). .

Lindsay v. Rose

6 Pa. D. & C. 325 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 22, 1924

v. … Hughes, 244 Pa. 397 ; Baldridge v. George, 216 Pa. 231 ; Agnew v. Southern Avenue Land Co., 204 Pa. 192 .

Klauder v. Cox

10 Pa. D. & C. 613 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · May 31, 1928

See, also, Lough v. City of Estherville, 122 Ia. 479 ; Jones v. Loving, 55 Miss. 109 ; Com. v. Kennedy, 118 Ky. 618 . … Indeed, in only two of the cases brought to our attention from American jurisdictions has a contrary rule been adopted: Wilcox v. Porth, 154 Wis. 422 , and Brown v. Railroad et al., 188 N. C. 52 .

Atlantic Refining Co. v. Cohen

34 Pa. D. & C. 582 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Oct 18, 1938

Brown, Jr., and Heiligman, JJ., This case is before us on a motion for a preliminary injunction. … Wallace Co. et al. v. International Association of Mechanics, etc., et al., supra, page 661.

Levin v. Philadelphia

10 Pa. D. & C.2d 272 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Oct 14, 1955

Zoning Board of Adjustment, 87 D. & C. 172, 181. The Pennsylvania view in this area may be traced through the billboard and zoning legislation cases. The early case of Bryan v. … Co. v. St. Louis, 249 U.

Mooney v. Specter

77 Pa. D. & C. 589 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jan 9, 1951

v. … See also Littler, Exec., et al. v. Dunbar et al., 365 Pa. 277 . They cannot repudiate the fraud of their agent and obtain the benefit of the contract: Meyerhoff, trading as M. S. Meyerhoff, v.

In re Nomination Petition of Shadding

46 Pa. D. & C.3d 248 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 8, 1987

As such, these signatures could have been rejected outright by the County Board of Elections or the Secretary of the Commonwealth upon submission of the nomination petition for certification. … Thompason v. Morrison, 352 Pa. 616 , 44 A.2d 55 (1945). If the court were to have included all of the amended challenged signatures, at least another 100 would have been stricken.