Case law

Davis v. Brown

46 Pa. D. & C. 123 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Oct 30, 1942

Plaintiff, in support of his contention, cites Commonwealth v. … E. 15 (1918); Morse et al. v. Stober et al., 233 Mass. 223 , 123 N. E. 780 (1919); John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. et al. v. Lester et al., 234 Mass. 559 , 125 N. E. 594 (1920).

Thornton v. Brown

84 Pa. D. & C. 530 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 7, 1952

There is good authority for such contention: Ehinger v. Bahl, 208 Pa. 250 , and Leon Gabai, Inc., v. Krakovitz, 98 Pa. … In Miners Savings Bank v.

Walden v. Brown

83 Pa. D. & C. 407 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jun 5, 1952

‘the head of any administrative board or commission.’ … Sturm v. McGrath et al., 177 F. 2d 472 (Kans. 1949).

Brown v. Buckner

69 Pa. D. & C. 629 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Sep 16, 1949

See Korman et al. v. Trainer et al., 258 Pa. 362 ; McClenachan v. Malis, Admx., et al., 310 Pa. 99, 102 ; Tudesco et ux. v. Wilson, 163 Pa. Superior Ct. 352, 355 . Hence this suit. … See Merritz v. Circelli et ux., 361 Pa. 239, 242 . In Suraci v. Ball, 160 Pa.

Suleski v. Brown

9 Pa. D. & C.2d 694 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Oct 1, 1956

On June lly 1956, Nathan Brown came to Philadelphia for the express purpose of having his deposition taken as a witness for use at trial in the case of Haddon Carpet Co., Inc., v. Jacob H. … S. 222 ; Stewart v. Ramsay, 242 U. S. 128 ; Diamond v. Earle, 217 Mass. 499 ; Parker v. Marco, 136 N. Y. 585 .

Nicolaides v. Brown

41 Pa. D. & C. 541 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 29, 1941

Pennsylvania adopted the New York rule stated in Mack v. Patchin, 42 N. … Kille, 97 Pa. 120 ; Einfeld v. Shermer, supra, at page 12. But cf. Minnich v. Kauffman, 265 Pa. 321, 323 .

Bailey v. Brown

52 Pa. D. & C. 56 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Sep 28, 1944

It is an equitable proceeding and is controlled by equitable principles: Blauvelt v. Kemon, 196 Pa. 128 ; Williams v. Notopolos, 247 Pa. 554 ; United States Savings & Trust Co., to use, v. Helsel, 325 Pa. 1 . … In the case of Nissenbaum v. Brahinsky, 17 Dist. R. 690, Martin, P. J., C. P.

Biddle v. Brown

8 Pa. D. & C. 579 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jan 27, 1927

As was said in a New York case (Markham v. Jaudon, 41 New York, 235), it is as unreasonable as to assert a custom to protest notes on the first day of grace. Such custom cannot be regarded as a defence.

Bonner v. Brown

5 Pa. D. & C. 365 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Oct 2, 1924

Brown.” … In Standard Refrigerator Co. v. Apeldorn & Beatty Co., 77 Pa.

Brown v. Posternock's Beauty Parlor

14 Pa. D. & C. 480 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Oct 2, 1930

Commonwealth ex rel. Brown v. Rundel

31 Pa. D. & C.2d 153 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · May 27, 1963

Mitchell v. Myers, 16 D. & C. 2d 253, (1958), affirmed per curiam 188 Pa. Superior Ct. 544 . Errors involving illegally obtained evidence which is inadmissible under the doctrine of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. … Stoner v. Myers, 199 Pa. Superior Ct. 341 (1962). Having found the petition for writ of habeas corpus without properly reviewable matter, we accordingly discharged the rule and dismissed the petition.

Board v. SEPTA

14 Pa. D. & C.5th 301 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jul 18, 2010

With regard to plaintiff Board, the medical providers submitted bills for $225, $2,505, and $3,070 to SEPTA for a total of $5,800.00. … Plaintiffs Louise Board and Claudette Houston are certified as class representatives. Michael D. Donovan of Donovan Searles LLC and Kevin P.

Pinsker v. Williams, Brown & Earle, Inc.

4 Pa. D. & C.2d 779 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Dec 19, 1955

Brown v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

5 Pa. D. & C.3d 469 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · May 8, 1978

See Long v. Rockwood Ins. Co., 5 D. & C. 3d 457 (1978). However, plaintiff herein has utilized both a complaint and a petition — a procedure which is duplicative as well as confusing.

Tax Review Board v. Weiner

11 Pa. D. & C.2d 733 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Oct 24, 1957

On the contrary, they are charges for providing a product and the relationship is essentially contractual: Shirk v. Lancaster City, 313 Pa. 158, 172-73 (1933). See Manheim Township Supervisors v. … The method of estimating water consumption adopted here has received judicial approval in prior cases: Philadelphia v. Goetz, 71 D. & C. 500 (1950). See Philadelphia v. Charleston, supra.

Brown v. Save-a-Lot

15 Pa. D. & C.5th 376 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jun 29, 2010

Gunn v. Grossman, 748 A2d 1235 (Pa. Super. 2000); Johnson v. Hyundai Motor America, 698 A.2d 631 (Pa. … Phatak v. United Chair Company, 756 A.2d 690 (Pa. Super. 2000); Mendralla v. Weaver Corporation, 703 A.2d 480 (Pa.

Merry v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

26 Pa. D. & C.2d 280 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Mar 6, 1961

Farming includes not only operation of a greenhouse and nursery (Marple Township v. Lynam, 151 Pa. Superior Ct. 288 (1943)), but the manufacture of artificial compost: Gaspari v. … The use of a *284 building for a car wash brings it within the same general character as garages and uses customarily accessory and incidental thereto: Novello v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 384 Pa. 294 (1956).

Bartle v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

10 Pa. D. & C.2d 613 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · May 22, 1957

Brown, P. … After a hearing before the. board, at which testimony was presented, the board decided that the zoning classification was properly changed, and the appeal was dismissed.

Board of Health v. Jones

1 Miles 28 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jun 22, 1835

The first section provides for the removal, by the Board of Health, of any nuisance existing upon unoccupied property, where the owner is non resident, or cannot be found by the messenger of the board. … The second section makes the expenses of such removal a lien upon the premises, and directs the board to file the claim therefor against the owner, or reputed owner, and to proceed in this court by scire facias, in like manner

Taddeo v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

3 Pa. D. & C.2d 454 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 7, 1955

This court recently reversed the zoning board of adjustment in the case of Lavelle v. … of Adjustment: Triolo et al. v.