Case law

Carr v. Summers

59 Pa. D. & C. 6 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Feb 18, 1947

Brewster Rhoads, Esq., solicitor, the board of public education does not have a legal claim to this money. In accordance with this opinion may I advise you that the board of public education will not make any claim.” … In Noble v. City of Palo Alto, 89 Cal.

Hauss v. Power

5 Pa. D. & C.2d 180 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Nov 4, 1955

The board has decided that it should not permit a commercial venture in a neighborhood devoted solely to residential purposes. … Zoning Case, 379 Pa. 516 (1954); Reininger Zoning Case, 362 Pa. 116 (1949); Triolo v. Exley, 358 Pa. 555 (1948).

Joy v. Specialty Engineering Co.

48 Pa. D. & C. 28 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · May 11, 1943

In Kuca v. … Superior Ct. 584 (1908); Smyth v. Goebel, 63 Pa. Superior Ct. 585 (1916); Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington R. R. to use v. Quaker City Flour Mills Co., 282 Pa. 362 (1925).

Clarey v. City of Philadelphia

16 Pa. D. & C. 375 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Feb 27, 1932

This principle was discussed in Philadelphia Museum v. University of Pennsylvania, 251 Pa. 115, 125 . … This board is to be appointed by the mayor, with the advice and consent of the council, and to consist of seven members, who, together with the mayor and president of council acting ex-officio, shall constitute the board

Geyer v. Geyer

52 Pa. D. & C. 133 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Dec 20, 1944

In Mallon v. Mallon, 11 Dist. R. 456, Galbogis v. Galbogis, 21 Dist. R. 515, Ackerman v. Ackerman, 3 D. & C. 296, Blesh v. … v.

Brooks v. City of Philadelphia

9 Pa. D. & C. 72 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Mar 24, 1927

We conclude that there is ample evidence to support the findings of the board, and that the law pertaining thereto has been correctly applied: Watkins v. Pittsburgh Coal Co., 278 Pa. 463 . … L. 736, which is limited in its application by article i, section 105; the opinion in Qualp v. Stewart Co., Inc., 266 Pa. 502 ; McGrath v. Pennsylvania Sugar Co., 282 Pa. 265 , fully sustain this view.

Krystopowicz v. Reading Co.

40 Pa. D. & C. 304 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jul 8, 1940

In Brown et al. v. … Co. v. Krayenbuhl, 65 Neb. 889 (1902) ; Brown v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry Co. et al., 135 Ky. 798 (1909). In the recent case of Powell et al. v.

In re African Methodist Episcopal Church

85 Pa. D. & C. 32 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Mar 5, 1953

; officers entitled to vote as members of the board; president to preside and entitled to vote as mem *35 ber of the board on all questions; nomination procedure ; persons entitled to be present at meetings. … The term de facto officer is used to describe one who, although not properly an officer, acts under color of right and is deemed to be an officer to prevent injury to the rights of innocent third parties: Shellenberger v.

Golasa v. Struse

9 Pa. D. & C.3d 48 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Dec 4, 1978

It is clear that corporate bylaws amount to a contract among the shareholders: Hornsby v. Lohmeyer, 364 Pa. 271 , 72 A. 2d 294 (1950). … See Hall v. West Chester Publishing Company, 180 Pa. 561 , 37 Atl. 106 (1897).

Manayunk Trust Company's Appeal

42 Pa. D. & C. 541 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jul 25, 1941

advertised by the board made it necessary for the board to refuse the application. … L. 507: Cumberland County v. Lemoyne Trust Co., 318 Pa. 85 . Appellant contends that that case is distinguishable from the present case. The differences, however, are not operative factors for tax purposes.

Casper v. Exley

45 Pa. D. & C. 664 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Aug 13, 1942

On October 29, 1941, petitioners appealed to the board of adjustment for a certificate of variance to permit the erection of a gasoline service station, but on February 7, 1942, this board refused the application, assigning … was so manifestly erroneous as to require reversal. *669 “We agree that it is not the duty of the courts to fix the district lines or otherwise to take the place of the zoning authorities, but as was pointed out in Taylor v.

Fix v. City of Philadelphia

68 Pa. D. & C.2d 329 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Aug 15, 1974

v. … increases in pay to which plaintiff was entitled under the said binding award of the board of arbitrators, effective July 1,1971. 6.

Atlas Metal Stamping Co. v. City of Philadelphia

60 Pa. D. & C. 78 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · May 22, 1947

Philadelphia et al., 161 Pa. 307 ; Board of Home Missions v. City of Philadelphia, 266 Pa. 405 ; Bethlehem Diocese v. Boyer et al., 20 Dist. R. 995; Young Men’s Christian Association v. Donohugh, 7 W. N. … City of Reading et al., 270 Pa. 92 ; Kirby v. Shaw, 19 Pa. 258 ; Sharpless et al. v. Mayor of Philadelphia, 21 Pa. 147 ; Washington Avenue, 69 Pa. 352 ; Weister et al. v.

Brower v. City of Philadelphia

3 Pa. D. & C. 284 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Dec 28, 1922

Plaintiff was a clerk employed by the Board of Inspectors of the Philadelphia County Prisons. His salary had been fixed by the Board of Inspectors at $3300 per annum. … Defendant moved for judgment n. o. v. In Butcher v. City of Philadelphia, 7 Dist. R. 593, a case involving the same question was decided by Pennypacker, P. J.

Piscataqua Bank v. Turnley

1 Miles 312 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jul 2, 1836

Markham v. Cobb, Wm Jones's Rep. 148. … Dyer’s Rep. 50; but see Proctor v. Berry, 1 Barnes’s Notes 450.

Stillwell v. Philadelphia Storage Battery Co.

26 Pa. D. & C. 461 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jul 16, 1936

While it is true as stated in Bonomo v. State Workmen’s Insurance Fund et al., 111 Pa. Superior Ct. 402 , that he is entitled to compensation? … The difference then between the conclusion reached by the referee and the board lies in the board’s substitution of “sound discretion” to reach the same conclusion and figures as the referee found by the employment of an

Houlehan v. Pullman Co.

2 Pa. D. & C. 587 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Dec 27, 1922

Knorr v. … L. 666; Kuca v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 268 Pa. 163 -165.

Joner v. Made-Rite Paper Box Co.

21 Pa. D. & C.2d 710 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Dec 28, 1959

See also Gower v. Mackes, 184 Pa. Superior Ct. 41, 44 ; Halloway v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation, 173 Pa. Superior Ct. 137 ; McAvoy v. Roberts & Mander Stove *713 Company, 173 Pa. Superior Ct. 516 ; Lemmon v. … In the recent case of Cunningham v.

Homan v. First National Bank

20 Pa. D. & C. 380 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jan 5, 1934

Counsel for plaintiffs relies upon the ruling of the appellate court in this case and the case of Randolph et al. v. Washington-Virginia Ry. Co. et al., 15 D. & C. 77. In Austin-Nichols & Co., Inc., v. … Justice Sadler in Austin-Nichols & Co. v.

Barsby v. Merck & Co.

14 Pa. D. & C. 277 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Sep 5, 1930

In Riley v. … In Com. v.