Case law

Wymard v. McCloskey & Co.

190 F. Supp. 420 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 1960

We have gone into some detail in deciding this question largely because of the case of Fanderlik-Locke Co. et al. v. United States for Use of Morgan et al., 10 Cir., 285 F.2d 939 . … Of this we are sure, however, that in the Fanderlik-Locke Co. et al. v.

Dimeo v. Max

433 F. Supp. 2d 523 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 26, 2006

See Cort v. … See Donato v.

Kohn v. American Metal Climax, Inc.

313 F. Supp. 1251 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 1970

The Board also unanimously approved a statement to be issued by Sir Ronald Prain, Chairman of the Board of RST, dated November 17, 1969. … The Chairman of the board of AMETALCO, Inc., is Sir.

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.

Murphy v. Gulf Oil Corp.

55 F. Supp. 962 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 1944

The policy was procured by defendant in accordance with the provisions of an order promulgated by the Maritime War Emergency Board. … My attention has been directed to the decision in McCormick v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., D.C., 54 F.Supp. 399 , 1943 A.M.C. 1422 , in which a contrary result was reached.

Schneck v. Saucon Valley School District

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

In Rutan v. … V.

Lord's Day Alliance of Pennsylvania v. United States

65 F. Supp. 62 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 1946

Judge Hand has pointed out (in Slee v. … In the case of Better Business Bureau of Washington v.

Magoni-Detwiler v. Pennsylvania

502 F. Supp. 2d 468 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2007

This time, the UC Board of Review affirmed the Referee’s decision. Magoni-Detwiler filed a request for reconsideration, which the Board also denied. … The decisions of the UC Referee and Board of Review do not constitute the decision of a state court, and thus the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply to those decisions. See Verizon Md., Inc. v.

Committee for New Management of Guaranty Bancshares Corp. v. Dimeling

772 F. Supp. 230 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 1991

Ehst is also a Committee nominee for the Guaranty Board of Directors (“Board”). (2) Marjorie M. … United States v. Wells Fargo Bank, 485 U.S. 351, 354 , 108 S.Ct. 1179, 1181-82 , 99 L.Ed.2d 368 (1988) (citing Ashwander 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.

Cooney v. Sun Shipbuilding & Drydock Company

288 F. Supp. 708 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 1968

* “But the files of the Board may well contain investigatory or other factual reports by Board employees, or reports and recommendations from persons outside the Board * * *. … Hubbard v. Southern Ry., supra; DeLong v. Kudu, supra. 7 .

United States ex rel. Johnson v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

247 F. Supp. 365 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 1965

Green v. United States, 283 F.2d 687 (3rd Cir. 1960); Kelly v. Dowd, 140 F.2d 81 (7th Cir. 1944), and cases there cited; Morrison v. Myers, Civil Action No. 26554, E.D.Pa., February 18, 1960; Com. ex rel. Thompson v. … The board has control over prison discipline and the conditions under which prisoners live.

Doroshow v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance

560 F. Supp. 2d 392 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 30, 2008

See Pinto v. Reliance Std. Life Ins. Co., 214 F.3d 377, 392 (3d Cir.2000). “This approach grants the administrator deference in accordance with the level of conflict.” Post v. Hartford Ins. … Brown recommended that Doroshow see an ALS specialist. That specialist, Dr.

Cahall v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

644 F. Supp. 806 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 1986

Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 , 103 S.Ct. 2841 , 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983); Hunter v. United Van Lanes, 746 F.2d 635, 639 (9th Cir.1984). … Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. at 22 , 103 S.Ct. at 2852 .

Miller & Son Paving, Inc. v. Wrightstown Township Civic Ass'n

443 F. Supp. 1268 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 1978

That order was appealed to the Township’s Zoning Hearing Board where the order of the Supervisors was upheld in part and dismissed in part. … Franchise Realty v. San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board 542 F.2d 1076, 1083 (9th Cir. 1976).

Lepre v. William F. Butler

394 F. Supp. 185 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 1975

Plaintiff’s pro se civil rights complaint alleges that the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Parole Board) revoked the grant of parole without prior notice or hearing, in violation of the rule of Morrissey v. … On June 10, 1974 plaintiff, still a prisoner, received written notice from the Parole Board that at a meeting of the Parole Board held on June 5,-1974 the following decision was rendered : Rescind Board action of 5-6-74,

Long v. Kistler

524 F. Supp. 225 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 1981

Bam ford. 12 A dissatisfied taxpayer must file an appeal with the Board of Assessment Appeals. An adverse decision by the Board may be appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, which exercises de novo review. … The county board of assessment appeals initially assesses the real property values, albeit without regard to assessments or methods thereof employed by other counties.

United States ex rel. Trinler v. Carusi

72 F. Supp. 193 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 1947

American Federation of Labor v. National Labor Relations Board, 308 U.S. 401 , 60 S.Ct. 300 , 84 L.Ed. 347 , and Switchmen’s Union of North America v. National Mediation Board, 320 U.S. 297 , 64 S.Ct. 95 , 88 L.Ed. 61 . … It construed the words “shall be final” to limit the scope, rather than the right, of review of local board action taken under that Act. Estep v.

Brauner v. United States

10 F.R.D. 468 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1950

Hickman v. … Wunderly v. United States, D.C., 8 F.R.D. 356 .

Newport News Iron Works, Inc. v. United States

298 F. 184 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 1924

Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. 300, 335 , 9 L. … The contrary was held by Judge Adams, of the Southern District of New York, in the case of Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co. v.