Case law

Homan v. City of Reading

15 F. Supp. 2d 696 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 1998

Id. at 679 (quoting Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972)). … See (Board of Health Meeting Minutes, October 21, 1996); Kirschner v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 924 F.Supp. 385, 391 (E.D.N.Y.1996) (quoting The Dartmouth Review v.

Creamer v. AIM Telephones, Inc.

159 B.R. 440 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 1993

Estate of Friedman v. Schoolman, 483 Pa. 614, 634 , 398 A.2d 615, 625 (1978) (quoting Fahringer v. Strine Estate, 420 Pa. 48, 53-55 , 216 A.2d 82, 85-86 (1966)). … See Fried v. Fisher, 328 Pa. 497, 501 , 196 A. 39, 41 (1938); Sunseri v. Sunseri, 358 Pa. 1, 6 , 55 A.2d 370 (1947).

Fort Washington Resources, Inc. v. Tannen

858 F. Supp. 455 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 1994

Browne v. Maxfield, 663 F.Supp. 1193, 1202 (E.D.Pa.1987) (citing Scaife Co. v. Rockwell-Standard Corp., 446 Pa. 280 , 285 A.2d 451, 454 (1971)). … Browne, 663 F.Supp. at 1202 ; Moser v. De-Setta, 527 Pa. 157 , 589 A.2d 679, 682 (1991). Under Anderson v.

Strother v. Nardolillo

583 F. Supp. 2d 645 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 2008

Hill Correctional Facility, Strother received notice that the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (the “Parole Board”) had ordered him to serve an additional 23 months and 20 days incarceration for his violation of … This petition was denied by the Parole Board on March 2, 2006. (Id.).

Dickheiser v. Pennsylvania R.

5 F.R.D. 5 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 11, 1945

Brensilber v. … Toucey v.

Jetro Cash & Carry Enterprises, Inc. v. Food Distribution Center

569 F. Supp. 1404 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 1983

Brown, 317 U.S. 341 , 63 S.Ct. 307 , 87 L.Ed. 315 (1943) and progeny. However, this argument is simply not supported by the law upon which PFFTC relies. … As Justice Brandeis observed in Chicago Board of Trade v. United States, 246 U.S. 231 , 38 S.Ct. 242 , 62 L.Ed. 683 (1918): Every agreement concerning trade, every regulation of trade, restrains.

Benger Laboratories, Limited v. RK Laros Company

209 F. Supp. 639 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 1962

Beyond all this, in view of the ruling in Topliff v. … This was the point upon which violation was predicated in United States v. Besser Mfg.

Buckles v. Weinberger

387 F. Supp. 328 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 1974

Mattern v. Weinberger, 377 F.Supp. 906, 914 (E.D.Pa. 1974); Brown v. Weinberger, 382 F. Supp. 1092 (D.Md., 1974); Padilla v. Weinberger, No. 74-439 Civil (D.N.M., Sept. 20, 1974); Ryan v. Shea, Civ. … Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 , 90 S.Ct. 1011 , 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970); Brown v. Weinberger, supra; Padilla v. Weinberger, supra; Atwater v. Weinberger, No. C-74-243-D (M.D.N.C., Sept. 17, 1974); Ryan v.

Kemether v. Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Ass'n

15 F. Supp. 2d 740 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 1998

Martin v. Safeguard Scientifics, Inc., No. 96-8293, 1998 WL 306528, at *4-6 (E.D.Pa. June 5, 1998) (citing N.L.R.B. v. Browning-Ferris Indus., 691 F.2d 1117, 1122 (3d Cir.1982)); Sabo v. … Brown Univ., 101 F.3d 155, 176 (1st Cir.1996) (distinguishing purposes of Title VII and Title IX); Marshall v. Regis Educ.

Schneck v. Saucon Valley School District

340 F. Supp. 2d 558 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 2004

In Rutan v. … V.

Wine Hobby, USA, Inc. v. United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms

363 F. Supp. 231 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 1973

In Soucie v. … I find that the Board has not met that burden.’ We do not need to reach the balancing issue decided by the District Court because we agree with the dicta of the panel in Soucie v.

United States v. Shanaman

123 F. Supp. 402 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 1954

, upon the entry of an order of such Board. … Sampson Motors, Inc. v. United States, 9 Cir., 1948, 168 F.2d 878 ; United States v. Edward Valves, Inc., 7 Cir., 1953, 207 F.2d 329 .

Edwards v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole

523 F. Supp. 2d 462 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 2007

Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 224-25 (3d Cir.2000) (quoting Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 386 (6th Cir.1999) (en banc)). A prisoner’s access to the courts is a constitutional right, Bounds v. … Although the Board argues that Edwards’s underlying claims are frivolous, Edwards survived a motion to dismiss on at least one of his claims, see Order of July 6. 2006, Edwards v. PA.

Garrett v. Bamford

394 F. Supp. 902 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 20, 1975

Narehood v. Pearson, 374 Pa. 299 , 96 A.2d 895 (1953); Y. M. C. A. v. City of Reading, 402 Pa. 592 , 167 A.2d 469 (1961); Crosson v. Downingtown Area School District, 440 Pa. 468 , 270 A.2d 377 (1970); Campbell v. … Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538, 542 , 543 n. 6, 92 S.Ct. 1113 , 31 L.Ed.2d 424 (1972); Bland, supra; Evangelical Catholic Communion, Inc. v. Thomas, 373 F.Supp. 1344 (D.Vt.1973); Mandel v.

The Birkenhead

51 F.2d 116 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 2, 1930

Ed. 760 ; Pacific Steamship Co. v. Peterson, 278 U. S. 130 , 49 S. Ct. 75 , 73 L. Ed. 220 . … In Plamals v. Pinar Del Rio, supra, the libelant’s injury was caused by the breaking of a rope by which he was being hoisted up to paint a smokestack.

Bateman v. Ford Motor Co.

214 F. Supp. 222 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 1963

Bate-man v. Ford Motor Co., 204 F.Supp. 357 (E.D.Pa.1962). On plaintiffs’ appeal from that ruling, the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded with directions by a divided court. Bateman v. … Prior proceedings are described in the opinion last cited, and in the following reported decisions — all under the caption of Bateman v.

GATES

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2026

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); see also Groman v. … See Rode v.

McClain v. MacK Trucks, Inc.

494 F. Supp. 114 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 1980

.” § 10 provides that “[i]f the appellant elects to appeal to the Public Review Board, the appeal *117 shall be considered by the Board or a panel thereof.” … Prominent community members from all walks of life sit on the Board and have power to grant a member relief as complete as that available in an action for damages in court. 11 . Cf. Mikkilinenni v.

Johnson Ex Rel. Johnson v. Hackett

284 F. Supp. 933 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 1968

In addition, Bristol Township and the Board of Commissioners have moved to dismiss on the ground that they are not subject to suit under the Act. I. Bristol Township and Board of Commissioners. … Under Pennsylvania law, the corporate power of townships of the first class is vested in the Board of Commissioners. 53 P.S. § 56502. As a body politic, the Board is likewise not subject to suit under the Act.

Moss v. School District of Norristown

250 F. Supp. 917 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 1966

The Virginia case, County School Board of Orange County v. … Kellam v. School Board, 202 Va. 252 , 117 S.E.2d 96, 98-99 (1960). Finally, the Maryland case upon which plaintiff relies, State for Use of Parr v.