Case law

Harrison v. The Eclipse

11 F. Cas. 648 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 1838

This was a part of the contract with the mate; he is induced to put his goods on board of the schooner— perhaps to purchase them — on the faith of this promise, and we may treat it as part of his contract as mate. … seems that the master of a trading vessel, intrusted with his command for the purpose of procuring goods on freight, cannot bind the owners by an engagement to carry goods free of freight; and a case in 1 Taunt 391 (Dewell v.

Forbes v. Eagleson

19 F. Supp. 2d 352 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 1998

Hodges v. … and the board changed the rules.

Blanning v. Tisch

378 F. Supp. 1058 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 1974

They serve as chairman of the board, chief executive officer and president of both companies. … The complaint in Jody v.

McKinnis v. Hartford Life

217 F.R.D. 359 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2003

Lovelace v. Acme Markets, 820 F.2d 81, 84 (3d Cir.1987). IV. … See Hemmerich Industries, Inc. v. Moss Brown & Co., Inc. 114 F.R.D. 31, 32 (E.D.Pa.1987) (finding service by certified mail on out-of-state corporate Defendant sufficient); Alloway v.

In Re Ikon Office Solutions, Inc. Securities Lit.

86 F. Supp. 2d 481 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 2000

Robbins, Mayer, Brown & Platt, Washington, DC, Lily Fu Swenson, Mayer, Brown & Platt, Washington, DC, for Ernst & Young LLP. E. … Mach. v.

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Griffin

893 F. Supp. 474 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 1995

Brown v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 435 Pa. 84 , 255 A.2d 554 (1969). Accordingly, he argues, we should grant his Motion. … In Brand v.

Nutis v. Penn Merchandising Corp.

610 F. Supp. 1573 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 1985

Factual Background In September of 1983, Old Penn’s Board of Directors approved an agreement of merger between Old Penn and New Penn Merchandising Corporation (“New Penn”). … In October of 1983, defendants sent out a proxy statement soliciting minority shareholder approval of the merger agreement which the board had adopted in September.

Valley Forge Plaza Associates v. Schwartz

114 B.R. 60 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 1990

See Bankruptcy Rule 8013, Brown v. Pennsylvania State Employees Credit Union, 851 F.2d 81, 84 (3d Cir.1988). This Court’s review of legal conclusions is subject to plenary review. Id. at 84 . … In re Heaven Sent Ltd. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 37 B.R. 597, 597-598 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Pa.1984); cf. In re Mason, 69 B.R. 876 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Pa.1987); In re Sudler, 71 B.R. 780 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Pa.1987).

Momah v. Albert Einstein Medical Center

978 F. Supp. 621 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 1997

.: Brown v. General Services Administration, 425 U.S. 820, 832 , 96 S.Ct. 1961, 1967 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976); Schanzer v. Rutgers University, 934 F.Supp. 669, 673 (D.N.J.1996); Burton v. … Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. 756 F.Supp. 1547, 1555 (M.D.Ga.1991), aff'd, 959 F.2d 1566 (11th Cir.1992).

Provident Indemnity Life Insurance v. Durbin

541 F. Supp. 4 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 4, 1981

Tunnell v. Wiley, 514 F.2d 971, 976 (3d Cir. 1975). … As the court in Shenandoah Life Insurance Co. v.

Estate of Burke v. Mahanoy City

40 F. Supp. 2d 274 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 1999

v. … In Brown , the court noted that the plaintiff demonstrated only what the police failed to do. 922 F.2d at 1116 .

Frankel v. Alan Wood Steel Co.

31 F.R.D. 284 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 1962

V. Pangborne and Company, Inc. (Pangborne) as a third-party defendant, on the ground that Koszoru’s death was due to the alleged negligence of Pangborne’s employees. … points specifically to the following items in support of its contention of its lack of control and supervision: (a) the employer, Pangborne, had the right to reject any applicant for employment; (b) the Union, examining board

Kommanvittselskapet Harwi v. United States

305 F. Supp. 882 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 1969

There was no formal upriver committee as such until May 12, 1963, when the Board of Directors of the Pilots Association designated two pilots members. … The Powell overlay had in fact been posted on the bulletin board at the Pilots Association. (N.T. 146) 32.

Bardsley v. Powell, Trachtman, Logan, Carrle & Bowman, P.C.

916 F. Supp. 458 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 1996

In the recent case of Tabas v. … Shaffer v. Board of Sch. Directors of the Albert Gallatin Area Sch. Dist., 730 F.2d 910, 912 (3d Cir.1984) (citing Weaver v. Marine Bank, 683 F.2d 744 (3d Cir.1982)); see Nutis v.

Thomas v. Penn Supply & Metal Corp.

35 F.R.D. 17 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 1964

The “Union” argues that this dispute is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, since the complaint alleges a violation of the Taft-Hartley Act. … Rekant v.

Weber v. Weber

44 F.R.D. 227 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 1968

In Main v. … Brown, 260 F.Supp. 323, 342-343 (E.D.Pa.1966). One final observation is in order.

Constand v. Cosby

112 F. Supp. 3d 308 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 6, 2015

Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 785 F.2d 1108 , 1121 (3d Cir.1986); see also Shingara v. … Bill , Cosby Speaks .at the 50th Anniversary, Commemoration of the Brown v.

Township of Whitehall v. Allentown Auto Auction

966 F. Supp. 385 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 1997

Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vac. Trust, 463 U.S. 1 , 103 S.Ct. 2841 , 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983). A case may not be removed on the basis of a defense with federal claims. Caterpillar, Inc. v. … See Mints v.

B. J. McAdams, Inc. v. Boggs

439 F. Supp. 738 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 1977

Shannon v. Baltz, 398 Pa. 431 , 158 A.2d 558 (1960). See also Smith v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 28 Pa.Cmwlth. 98, 101-03 , 367 A.2d 811, 813 (1977). … Brown. On October 24, 1975, plaintiff filed an amended complaint which dropped Brown and added all of the other defendants. 3 .

Sulovitz v. United States

64 F. Supp. 637 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 1945

In reaching this conclusion, we follow Sieracki v. Seas Shipping Co., Inc., et al., 3 Cir., 149 F.2d 98, 101 . … We must recognize, however, the practical and customary manner of performing such duty and appreciate that supervision by a single officer could be no more than a general overall observation of the activities on board, and