Case law

Pressley v. Travelers Property Casualty Corp.

817 A.2d 1131 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 12, 2003

V. … Aiello v.

Manegold v. Quinn

45 Pa. Super. 482 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 1911

As explained in Brown v. Stackhouse, 155 Pa. 582 , it applies only where the owner has notice. And so, in Harris v. Shaw, 17 Pa. … Davis, 128 Pa. 100 , and *488 accordingly the right of the owner to maintain such action against him has been repeatedly recognized: Davis v. Davis, 128 Pa. 100 ; Esterly Machine Co. v. Spencer, 147 Pa. 466 ; Brown v.

Commonwealth v. Williams

2005 Pa. Super. 217 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2005

Commonwealth v. Brown, 313 Pa.Super. 256 , 459 A.2d 837 (1983). Here, the correctness of the remand order was not before the PCHA court. … Commonwealth v.

Commonwealth v. McKenty

52 Pa. Super. 332 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 1912

Amongst the cases in which some or all of the questions raised here have been considered and discussed are: Com. v. Brown, 167 Mass. 144 ; Murphy v. Com., 172 Mass. 264 ; Miller v. State, 149 Ind. 607 ; Wilson v. … In Erie v.

In Re Appointment of Visitors to the Allegheny County Home

109 Pa. Super. 519 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 1933

As held in Com. ex rel. v. Brown, 210 Pa. 29 , a local act is not repealed by a general act on the same subject, even if it contains different or inconsistent provisions. In that case Mr. … See Richardson v. Clarion County, 14 Pa. 198 ; Lycoming County Commissioners v. Hall, 7 Watts 290 , and Allegheny County v. Watt, 3 Pa. 462 .” In Mogel v.

Kazanjian v. Cohen

175 Pa. Super. 195 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 1954

Appellant filed an appeal from this order to the Philadelphia County Rent Advisory Board which, after hearing, dismissed the appeal. … In Planters Co. v. Brown-Murray Co., 128 Pa.

Wilson v. Wilson

297 Pa. Super. 14 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 1981

Brown v. Brown, 254 Pa.Super. 410 , 386 A.2d 15 (1978), we find no conflict with our views taken in the present case. … Board of Property Assess., App. & Rev., 7 Pa.Cmwlth. 291 , 298 A.2d 643 (1972), rev’d on other grounds, Greentree v. Board of Property Assess., App. & Rev., 459 Pa. 268 , 328 A.2d 819 (1974).

Commonwealth v. Martuscelli

2012 Pa. Super. 213 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 2012

Commonwealth v. Matthew, 589 Pa. 487 , 909 A.2d 1254 (2006). … Commonwealth v.

Hawthorne v. DRAVO CORP. KEYSTONE DIV.

313 Pa. Super. 436 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1983

Brown, an area resident who assisted in the rescue operations, testified that as he began to walk towards the river to wade into the water on the night of November 11, 1974, an employee of Dravo yelled from the dredge that … Authority to enter agreements pertaining to dredging was thereby vested in the Water and Power Resources Board.

Commonwealth v. Anderson

191 Pa. Super. 213 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 1959

See also People v. Ross, 60 Cal. App. 163 , 212 P. 627 . *219 It is true that Brown v. United States, D.C. Mun. … The rule stated in the Brown case was reiterated in Bussie v. United States, D.C. Mun. App., 81 A. 2d 247 , wherein the specific question presented was the sufficiency of the evidence.

Thomas, M. v. Board of Supervisors of Rice Twp.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 2015

SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 MARCIA THOMAS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. … BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF RICE TOWNSHIP; MILLER J. STELLA, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUPERVISOR OF RICE TOWNSHIP; GEORGE VENESKY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUPERVISOR OF RICE TOWNSHIP; DONALD ARMSTRONG, INDIVIDUALLY ; THOMAS M.

Commonwealth v. Saunders

2008 Pa. Super. 60 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 2008

Commonwealth v. … Commonwealth v.

Commonwealth v. Pestinikas

421 Pa. Super. 371 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 1992

With regard to contracts being a basis for criminal liability note that the Brown court referred to People v. Beardsley, 150 Mich. 206 , 113 N.W. 1128 (1907). … State v. Brown, 631 P.2d at 131 . (emphasis added.) The Beardsley court, as the courts in Montecino and Davis , was not concerned with a statutory interpretation of the phrase “duty imposed by law.”

Bertolet v. Lanard

152 Pa. Super. 37 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 1943

In Straus v. Rahn, 319 Pa. 93 , 179 A. 445 , on page 98, quoting from Class & Nachod Brewing Co. v. … As was said in Herrington v.

Commonwealth v. Brewington

1999 Pa. Super. 243 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 1999

Commonwealth v. … Commonwealth v.

Grossman v. Mitchell

291 Pa. Super. 385 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 1981

Company v. Rostraver Township Zoning Hearing Board, 49 Pa.Cmwlth. 204 , 410 A.2d 1298 (1980). In the case at hand, however, we find just such manifest error. … Black and Brown, Inc. v. Home for the Accepted, Inc., 233 Pa.Super. 518 , 335 A.2d 722 (1975). The record herein evinces that no such valid attempt at timely compliance was made by appellee.

Schwab v. Bickel

11 Pa. Super. 312 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 28, 1899

v. … Rosewell v. Prior, Salk. 460.

Brokaw v. State Workmen's Insurance Fund

129 Pa. Super. 266 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 1937

The undisputed facts disclose that she was employed as secretary to the treasurer of the George School, located in Bucks County, at a monthly wage rate, and was furnished with board and lodging on the school grounds. … If she had entered the office building and been injured therein, undoubtedly, she would be entitled to compensation: Brown v. Elks Club, 113 Pa. Superior Ct. 226 , 172 A. 408 .

Drum v. Shaull Equipment and Supply Co.

2000 Pa. Super. 236 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 2000

Ravin, Inc. v. … See Lorah v.

Brown, C. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2018

: PENNSYLVANIA : Appellant : : : v … for entry of satisfaction, enter satisfaction in the office of the clerk of the court where such judgment is outstanding, which satisfaction shall forever discharge the judgment.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8104(a); see also Wilk v.