Case law

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).

Gilbert v. Conrail

14 Pa. D. & C.4th 147 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 22, 1992

Brock v. Rogers & Babler Inc., 536 P.2d 778, 782 (Sup. Ct. Alaska, 1975). … Strothman v. Houggy, 186 Pa. Super. 638 , 142 A.2d 769 (1958), is not on point.

Chisom v. United National Insurance

38 Pa. D. & C.2d 642 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 13, 1966

Brown, who did not carry liability insurance. Plaintiffs were covered for liability and uninsured motorists by defendant, United National Insurance Company. … Brown, and that a claim under the uninsured motorists provision of the policy would be forthcoming.

Freking v. Philadelphia National Home Show, Inc.

41 Pa. D. & C. 414 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 24, 1941

: Scull, Sr., v. … Superior Ct. 226 (1933); Lowicki v. Filner, 128 Pa. Superior Ct. 118 (1937); Stewart v. Mullineaux et al., 138 Pa. Superior Ct. 43 (1939); Wahl v. State Workmen’s Insurance Fund et al., 139 Pa.

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).

Corniak v. Cohen

39 Pa. D. & C. 601 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Nov 6, 1940

A mere perusal of Conley v. Allegheny County, 131 Pa. Superior Ct. 236 or Croll v. Miller et al., 133 Pa. … In Croll v.

Rhoads' Petition

20 Pa. D. & C. 268 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Dec 31, 1933

The report of the board of viewers contained a conclusion of law wherein it was stated that while there may be other reasons barring the *269 recovery of damages in this proceeding “the refusal of an award to him by the board … In Brower et al. v. City of Philadelphia, supra, the same conclusion was reached. In Ickes v. Leetsdale Borough, 247 Pa. 394 , it was held that under the authority of Hannum v.

Steinberg v. City of Philadelphia

16 Pa. D. & C.2d 757 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Aug 4, 1958

See Breitinger v. Philadelphia, 363 Pa. 512 ; Murray v. Philadelphia, 363 Pa. 524 . Undoubtedly, the net profits tax is imposed only on “earned income” and does not apply to investment income: Breitinger v. … However, in relying upon Hadden v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 49 F. 2d 709 (2d Cir.), and Kyle v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 43 F. 2d 291 (3d Cir.), appellant reveals the error in his approach.

Mooney v. Lederman

20 Pa. D. & C. 413 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jan 9, 1934

Middlecreek Electric Co., 232 Pa. 641 ; Allison et al. v. Powers, 179 Pa. 531 . … But in Wilson v. Pittsburgh B. & I. Works, 85 Pa.

Philadelphia School District Condemnation

47 Pa. D. & C.2d 454 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Feb 24, 1969

“The policies of school authorities” will not be questioned “so long as the board is acting within the scope of its statutory authority and in good faith . . .”: Wilson v. … use is an administrative matter and the action of the school board, in the absence of fraud, is binding on the courts: Jury et al. v.

Dalton v. Gray Line Motor Tours

10 Pa. D. & C. 702 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jun 5, 1928

In this we think the board erred. … The recent case of Meucci v.

Avery v. African American Museum

16 Pa. D. & C.5th 361 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jul 30, 2010

Benson sought the counsel of the executive board prior to Mr. Avery’s termination. Id. at 49-50. Following Ms. Benson’s discussion with the executive board, she sent Mr. … Nemirovsky v. Nemirovsky, 776 A.2d 988, 993 (Pa. Super. 2001). Conflicting testimony alone is not sufficient grounds to grant a new trial. Id. (citing Martin v. Evans, 551 Pa. 496 , 711 A.2d 458, 461 (1998); Baldino v.

Strauss v. Harry Lipoff's Wholesale Meat Co.

70 Pa. D. & C. 579 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Dec 21, 1949

It was, therefore, held in Goliat v. Butler Consolidated Coal Company et al., 155 Pa. … There is a clear distinction between “artificial appliances” and “reasonable surgical and medical services”. *581 The board had so correctly held in a prior ruling, Riccobono v. Gutman and Son, 29 Dept.

North American Knanaya Diocese Inc. v. Chirayl

44 Pa. D. & C.5th 106 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Dec 15, 2015

Plaintiff rely on Poesnecker v. Ricchi, 158 Pa. Cmwlth. 459, 631 A.2d 1097 (Pa. … Feingold v. Hendrzak, 2011 Pa. Super 34, 15 A.3d 937, 941 (2011). . Presbytery of Beaver-Butler of United Presbyterian Church in U.S. v.

Clark v. Frankford Hospital

30 Pa. D. & C.4th 1 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jun 7, 1996

Brown. Dr. Brown is a world-renowned retina specialist and he testified as to what he did.... Dr. Brown didn’t say that the trauma caused the detachments . . . Dr. Brown’s partner, Dr. … Brown’s omitted causation testimony as well.

Croll v. Forrest Laundry

44 Pa. D. & C. 548 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jan 23, 1942

Compare Clark v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 264 Pa. 529 (1919) ; Yodis v. Philadelphia and Reading Coal & Iron Co., 269 Pa. 586 (1921); Calderwood v. Consolidated *554 Lumber & Supply Co., 91 Pa. … Superior Ct. 189 (1927); Honis v. Coxe Bros. & Co., Inc., 95 Pa. Superior Ct. 209 (1929); Jones v. United Iron & Metal Co., 99 Pa. Superior Ct. 394 (1930) ; McCoy v. Spriggs, 102 Pa.

Southeastern Pennsylvania Trans. Authority v. Philadelphia Transit Consultants

20 Pa. D. & C.5th 544 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jan 19, 2011

He had been a member of the supervisory “joint board of control.” At deposition Mr. … See TM v. Elwyn, Inc., 950 A.2d 1050 (Pa. Super. 2008). *553 “However the work product privilege is not absolute and items may be deemed discoverable if the product sought becomes a relevant issue in the case.” .

Commonwealth v. Green

30 Pa. D. & C. 350 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Aug 19, 1937

appraisers which was merely a de facto board. … The employes of this de facto board are entitled to be paid for the period during which they actually work: See the orders of Mr. Chief Justice Kephart, dated June 25,1937, in the case of Suermann v.

Appeal of the Pennsylvania Co.

36 Pa. D. & C. 212 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Sep 26, 1939

As we understand the act it authorizes the board to make refunds of taxes and so forth when they have been erroneously paid, but it does not require the board to do so, and the act does not provide for an appeal, nor does … Arrott v. Allegheny County, 328 Pa. 293 , seems to us to settle the question.

Academy of Natural Sciences v. City of Philadelphia

6 Pa. D. & C.2d 145 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · May 9, 1955

of North America v. … No such legislative purpose is to be gathered from the act and we can see no sound reason for reading it into the legislation: Lycoming House v. Board of Revision, supra.