Case law

Malik v. Uniontown

172 Pa. Super. 562 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 1953

In Campbell v. Oakmont Borough, 157 Pa. … It was within the province of the Board to weigh the conflicting expert testimony and to accept or reject that of any witness. Frick v. Pittsburgh School District, 167 Pa. Superior Ct. 431 , 74 A. 2d 659 ; Williams v.

DeMary v. Latrobe Printing & Publishing Co.

2000 Pa. Super. 339 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 2000

(Board), and comments made by citizens while a Board meeting was in recess. … Curran v.

Zerby v. Reading Company

125 Pa. Super. 397 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1936

On appeal to the board, the findings of the referee were affirmed and on appeal to the court of common pleas, the order of the board was affirmed, from which order claimant brings this appeal. … Superior Ct. 536 , 161 A. 622 ; Ernst v. Sassaman, 117 Pa. Superior Ct. 353 , 178 A. 317 ; Tinsman v. Jones & Laughlin S. Corp., 118 Pa. Superior Ct. 516 , 180 A. 175 ; Borneman v. H. C. Frick Coke Co., 122 Pa.

Koch v. Oil City

47 Pa. Super. 248 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 1911

See also Wojciechowski v. Johnkowski, 16 Pa. Superior Ct. 444 . … The action of the board of health was prompted, not only by the dictates of humanity, but by their common sense and interpretation of their duty. The case of Borger v. Alliance Borough, 28 Pa.

Mancine v. Concord-Liberty Savings & Loan Ass'n

299 Pa. Super. 260 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 1982

Bowen, 6 Watts & S. 504 (1843); Springer v. Brown, 9 Pa. 305 (1848); Wilson v. McCullough, 19 Pa. 77 (1852); Evans v. Meylert, 19 Pa. 402 (1852); Gibson v. Winslow, 38 Pa. 49 (1861); Kinter v. … wrongfully sold by appellee at sheriff’s sale; for damages she incurred because she had to vacate her home; for causing her to give up her belongings and furnishings; for loss of income by way of having to pay room and board

Dominski v. Garrett

276 Pa. Super. 18 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 1980

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Rapistan, Inc., 472 Pa. 36 , 371 A.2d 178 (1976); Buchanan v. Brentwood Federal Savings and Loan Association, 457 Pa. 135 , 320 A.2d 117 (1974). … Kowalski, 433 S.W.2d 530 (Tex.Civ.App.1968); Hatley v. Johnston, 265 N.C. 73 , 143 S.E.2d 260 (1965); Betts v. Brown, 219 Ga. 782 , 136 S.E.2d 365 (1964); Kincaid v. Alderson, 209 Term. 597, 354 S.W.2d 775 (1962).

Commonwealth v. Diagicobbe

85 Pa. Super. 305 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 1925

Brown, 264 Pa. 85, 90 ; Com. v. Pezzner, 78 Pa. Superior Ct. 286, 289 . … The withdrawal of a juror was asked in Com. v. Brown, supra, p. 89 ; and although it does not appear in the report of the ease, an examination of *309 the record (p. 321-a) shows a similar motion in Com. v.

Stinger v. Rinold Bros.

80 Pa. Super. 420 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 1923

The inference to be drawn from the facts was for the board, and the conclusion arrived at in this case, was reasonable. See Stahl v. Watson Coal Co., 268 Pa. 452 ; Watson v. Lehigh Coal & N. Co., 273 Pa. 251 . … In Gairt v.

Pittsburgh Poster Advertising Co. v. Swissvale Borough

70 Pa. Super. 224 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 1918

The law as to the authority of municipalities over billboards is stated in Bryan v. … said applicant to erect said boards and other devices and maintain the same until next succeeding.”

Commonwealth v. Duell

305 Pa. Super. 431 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 1982

Commonwealth v. Pullano, 295 Pa.Super. 68 , 440 A.2d 1226 (1982); Commonwealth v. Stoner, 236 Pa.Super. 161 , 344 A.2d 633 (1975). … Under the holding in Ross , the seizure of the brown paper bag was not illegal. It is true that, in holding as it did in Ross , the Supreme Court overruled its decision in the case of Robbins v.

Clover Bar, Inc. Liquor License Case

203 Pa. Super. 11 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 1964

which they turned over to the chief chemist for the Board for analysis. … The result of such an experiment and the resultant opinion were accepted by our Supreme Court in Caskie v. Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Inc., 373 Pa. 614 , 96 A. 2d 901 (1953).

Larsen v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.

375 Pa. Super. 66 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 1988

Article V, Section 18(h) of the Pennsylvania Constitution reads: Suspension, Removal, Discipline and Compulsory Retirement Section 18. * sV * >V * * (h) The Supreme Court shall review the record of the board’s proceedings … See The First Amendment Coalition v. Judicial Inquiry and Review Board, 784 F.2d 467 (3rd Cir.1986).

Com. v. Booze, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2021

Commonwealth v. Brown, 603 Pa. 31, 981 A.2d 893 (2009). Additionally, the amount of the restitution award must be supported by the record and may not be speculative. Commonwealth v. … See Brown, supra.

Susman v. Kaufmann's Department Store

182 Pa. Super. 467 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 1956

In cases of this nature, our review on appeal is limited to matters of law, and where the findings of the Board are based on competent evidence they are conclusive: Greap v. Oberdorff, 178 Pa. … Based upon claimant’s testimony, however, the Board stated “that the claimant was employed by the defendant during the late part of July, 1954”. Logan v. Pot Ridge Coal Co., 79 Pa. Superior Ct. 421 ; Bock v.

Commonwealth v. Kelly

2007 Pa. Super. 234 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 2007

Commonwealth v. Miller, 810 A.2d 178, 180 (Pa.Super.2002). In that vein, we may reverse a decision to deny a petition for habeas corpus only when the trial court has committed a manifest abuse of discretion. … See Commonwealth v.

Puntureri v. Pittsburgh

170 Pa. Super. 159 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 1951

It is conceded that appellee is required to obtain an amusement permit from the State Liquor Control Board, but it is likewise true that the interest of the Liquor Control Board in policing its licensees is to insure itself … Western Pennsylvania Restaurant Association v. Pittsburgh, supra; Brazier v. Philadelphia, 215 Pa. 297, 301 , 64 A. 508 . Cf. Radnor Township v. Bell, 27 Pa. Superior Ct. 1 ; City of Pittsburgh v. Streng, 90 Pa.

Lubanski v. Dela., Lacka. W.R.R. Co.

81 Pa. Super. 538 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 1923

To settle it, the parties joined in a petition to the board, stating facts agreed upon, and desiring the board to determine the weekly rate payable after February 8, 1921, each reserving a right of appeal. … When paid, according to this record, so much of the transaction was ended and the obligation satisfied: Hall v. Steel Co., 79 Pa. Super. 303 P 306; Garrity v. Bituco Mfg. Co., 277 Pa. 88 .

Dolinar v. Pittsburgh

140 Pa. Super. 543 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 1940

Gausman v. Pearson Co., 284 Pa. 348 , 131 A. 247 . The fact that an employee suffered from a chronic ailment which made him susceptible to injury from overexertion does not defeat the right to compensation. Hill v. … O’Neill v. Lehigh C. & Nav. Co., 108 Pa. Superior Ct. 425 , 165 A. 60 .

Com. v. Leaner, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 2019

Commonwealth v. Brown, 185 A.3d 316, 332 n.13 (Pa. 2018). … See Commonwealth v.

Allen Unemployment Compensation Case

174 Pa. Super. 514 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 1954

And finally, in her testimony before the Board, she referred to physical ailments brought about by nervous tension as additional reasons' for her ending her employment. … In principle the present case has much in common with Seroskie v. Unemploy. Compensation Board, 169 Pa.