Case law

United States v. Fumo

628 F. Supp. 2d 573 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 2007

Brown, 588 F.2d at 668. I am thus in agreement with the district court in United States v. Camiel, 503 F.Supp. at 774 , which declined to dismiss Senator Fumo’s prior indictment for mail fraud. … Nevertheless, United States v. Brown, supra, states that the relation of the mailing to the fraud is a question of fact; hence, it is a matter to be determined by the jury.

United States v. Jones

362 F. Supp. 707 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 1973

Compare United States v. Crippen, 459 F.2d 1387, 1388 (3rd Cir. 1972); United States v. Raysor, 294 F.2d 563, 567 (3rd Cir. 1961). The defendant, relying on United States v. … United States v. Hykel, 461 F.2d 721, 728 (3rd Cir. 1972).

Harold v. Barnhart

450 F. Supp. 2d 544 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 2006

See Stone v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 179 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed.Cir.1999); cf. Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) and Chabal v. … Brown v. Philip Morris, Inc., 250 F.3d 789, 800 (3d Cir.2001).

Radel v. Volatile

312 F. Supp. 1300 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1969

Vaccarino v. Officer of Day, "John Doe" and Local Board No. 1, 305 F.Supp. 732 (S.D.N.Y. Opinion filed October 28, 1969). … It is at the discretion of the Local Board to determine whether a particular registrant has met that burden, Fleming v.

Student Doe 1 v. Lower Merion School District

689 F. Supp. 2d 742 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2010

Under Marks v. … .”); Hart v. Cmty. Sch.

Nobile v. Woodward

200 F. Supp. 785 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 1962

Such a claim is cognizable here and not before the National Railroad Adjustment Board. His futile application to the Board does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court. Latham v. … Cunningham v. Erie Railroad Company, 266 F.2d 411 (2d Cir. 1959); reiterated in Latham v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, 274 F.2d 507 (2d Cir. 1960); Sells *787 v.

Eleey v. Volatile

339 F. Supp. 57 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 1971

Scott v. Commanding Officer, 431 F.2d 1132 (3rd Cir. 1970); Paszel v. Laird, supra; Capobianco v. Laird, 424 F.2d 1304 (2d Cir. 1970). … Scott v. Commanding Officer, supra, 431 F.2d at 1137 ; Paszel v. Laird, supra, 426 F.2d at 1175; United States v. Broyles, supra, 423 F.2d at 1303 .

United States v. Berks County, Pa.

250 F. Supp. 2d 525 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 2003

V. … See Johnson v.

Goldstein v. Lincoln National Convertible Securities Fund, Inc.

140 F. Supp. 2d 424 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 2001

Co. v. … Mills v.

Aljaf Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Federal Deposit Insurance

879 F. Supp. 515 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 1995

The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois considered a similar argument in Brown Leasing Co. v. FDIC, 833 F.Supp. 672 (N.D.Ill.1993), aff'd sub nom Brown Leasing Co. v. … See also Coleman v. FDIC, 826 F.Supp. 31 (D.Mass.1993). Aljaf cites dicta from Nants v.

Geist v. Ammary

40 F. Supp. 3d 467 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2014

See Brown v. … See Brown v.

In Re Sunrise Securities Litigation

109 B.R. 658 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 1990

See Ray v. Turner, 587 F.2d 1187 , 1214 n. 56 (D.C.Cir.1978); Resident Advisory Board, 97 F.R.D. at 753 . See also Hinton v. Dept. of Justice, 844 F.2d 126, 128-29 (3d Cir. 1988). … Resident Advisory Board, 97 F.R.D. at 753 . See also Conoco v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 687 F.2d 724, 728 (3d Cir. 1982); United States v. O’Neill, 619 F.2d 222, 226 (3d Cir.1980).

Donovan v. Richland Shoe Co.

623 F. Supp. 667 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 1985

The contract or agreement must also provide a weekly guaranty of pay for not more than sixty hours per week. 29 U.S.C. § 207 (f); see 29 C.F.R. § 778 .-405-778.413; Donovan v. Brown Equip. & Serv. … Brennan v. Heard, 491 F.2d 1, 3 (5th Cir.1974) (emphasis in original). See also Donovan v. Sabine Irrigation Co., Inc., 695 F.2d 190, 196 (5th Cir.1983).

Giuliani v. Springfield Township

238 F. Supp. 3d 670 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2017

Hearing Board, Commissioner Glen A. … First, in Garlasco v. Stuart, 602 F.Supp.2d 396 (D. Conn. 2009), the plaintiff had applied for a variance, which was denied by the defendant zoning board. Id. at 403 .

Bartol v. Barrowclough

251 F. Supp. 3d 855 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 3, 2017

Defendant Board of Township Commissioners of Tinicum Township (“the Board”) comprises Defendants Tom Gian-cristoforb, Jr., Dennis R. Arthur, Patrick K. … McCarthy, Lisa Edmiston and Pat Barr, all of whom are individual members of the Board (collectively, “Individual Board Defendants”). Id. ¶¶ 9, 11 .

American Communications Ass'n C. I. O. v. Schauffler

80 F. Supp. 400 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 1948

Accordingly the Board is an indispensable party and the rule as clarified in Williams v. Fanning, 1947, 332 U.S. 490 , 68 S.Ct 188 , becomes applicable. … The contention that these subsections are unconstitutional was disposed of by the decision of the Supreme Court today in National Maritime Union of America v.

Sarchet v. The General Isaac Davis

21 F. Cas. 484 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 1838

In 1 Atk. 571, Brandlyn v. … Richards [Case No. 6,182], and 1 Brown (Pa.) Append. 1.

McDevitt v. Gunn

182 F. Supp. 335 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 1, 1960

V. … Co. v. Board of Agriculture of North Carolina, 1911, 222 U.S. 380, 394 , 32 S.Ct. 152 , 56 L.Ed. 240 ; Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Board of Public Works, 1898, 172 U.S. 32, 44-45 , 19 S.Ct. 90 , 43 L.Ed. 354 .

Titan Environmental Construction Systems, Inc. v. School District

421 F. Supp. 1289 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 1976

See Department of Education v. Jersey Shore Area School District, 353 A.2d 91 (Pa.Cmwlth.1976); Gordon v. Board of Directors, 21 Pa.Cmwlth. 616 , 347 A.2d 347 (1975). … The Court notes that the holding of the Mullen case is not limited to school board actions with respect to teacher contracts. In Kennedy v.

Howard v. Horn

56 F. Supp. 3d 709 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 4, 2014

Brown was not supported by evidence on the record, and (2) because the prosecutor “chastised the defense for not presenting Mr. Brown as a witness.” Id. … Thus, the prosecutor’s proffered reason for not calling Brown was a “fair comment and reasonable inference for the jury to draw from the evidence of record. See United States v.