Case law

Hyrcza v. West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc.

2009 Pa. Super. 119 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 2009

, be board certified by the same or a similar approved board, except as provided in subsection (e). … Buckley v.

Sailer's Appeal

120 Pa. Super. 69 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1935

Co. v. Luz. Co. … Co. v. Luz. Co. Commrs., supra ( 245 Pa. 515, 518 ).

Laundry Machinery Co. v. Fromuth

15 Pa. Super. 339 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 1900

The transaction, under our decisions, was clearly a conditional sale, and cannot be sustained as against the creditors of the vendee: Rieker v. Koechling, 4 Pa. Superior Ct. 286 ; Ladley v. Express Co., 3 Pa. … Superior Ct. 149 ; Jones v. Wands, 1 Pa. Superior Ct. 269 ; Ott v. Sweatman, 166 Pa. 217 ; Collins v. Railroad Co., 171 Pa. 243 ; Printing Co. v. Jordan, 171 Pa. 474 ; Electric Co. v. Brown, 193 Pa. 351 .

Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. McKelvey Hughes Co.

64 Pa. Super. 57 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 1916

It is upon the theory that the judgment and the decree of the court was a nullity that we are authorized to reverse its action: Case of Hummell and Bishoff, 9 Watts 416 ; Palmer v. Central Board of Education, 40 Pa. … Central Board of Education, supra; Patterson v. Wyoming Valley District Council, 31 Pa. Superior Ct. 112 .

Commonwealth v. Smith

1999 Pa. Super. 96 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 1999

. ¶ 3 Agent Paret and Trooper Hodges received permission from the bus driver to board the bus, and, before entering the bus themselves, they first allowed passengers to board or exit it. N.T. 9/22/97 at 9-11, 25. … Finucane v.

Commonwealth v. Ryan

253 Pa. Super. 92 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 1978

Commonwealth v. … Commonwealth v.

Commonwealth v. Talley

430 Pa. Super. 351 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 1993

In Commonwealth v. … While searching the passenger compartment, the officer seized the brown bag shoved under Morris’ car seat and discovered that it contained clear vials of crack cocaine.

George v. Ellis

2003 Pa. Super. 121 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2003

Rauch v. Mike-Mayer, 783 A.2d 815 (Pa.Super.2001). … Bull again testified that he was not board certified or licensed to practice medicine in the United States. Id. at 38 and 45.

Kummerer v. Snyder

117 Pa. Super. 28 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 1934

Justice Walling in Watkins v. … To same effect Samoskie v. P. & R. C. & I. Co., 280 Pa. 203 , 124 A. 471 ; see also Calderwood v. Consolidated Lumber & Supply Co., 91 Pa. Superior Ct. 189 , wherein the cases on this subject are reviewed.

Baldwin v. the City of Erie

94 Pa. Super. 106 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 1928

This section of the Act of 1901 was under consideration in Geesey v. … Where a statutory remedy exists and may be pursued, equity cannot interfere on the ground of irreparable mischief: Brown’s Appeal, 66 Pa. 155 .

Commonwealth ex rel. Schiavo v. Banmiller

183 Pa. Super. 303 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 1957

L. 1182 in so far as it relates to persons over whom exclusive jurisdiction is now vested in the Board of Parole. Reliance is placed upon the following dictum of the Supreme Court in Commonwealth ex rel. Tate v. … Davidson v. Maroney, 177 Pa. Superior Ct. 82 , 110 A. 2d 822 (1955). The precise question which appellant here raises was considered in Commonwealth ex rel. Klinefelter v. Pa.

Sullivan v. Wolson

262 Pa. Super. 397 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 1978

Brown v. Schriver is right on point. … Brown v. Schriver, 254 Pa.Super. 468 , 386 A.2d 45 (1978); Reifel v. Hershey Estate, 222 Pa.Super. 212 , 295 A.2d 138 (1972). 5 . Our Supreme Court in Evans v. Phila. Transp.

Warehime v. ARWCO Corp.

451 Pa. Super. 468 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 1996

Appellant is a minority shareholder and a member of the Board of Directors of appellee ARWCO corporation, which is family owned. … A vote of all of the shareholders on the plan was scheduled by the Board to occur on November 18,1994.

Kotkoskie v. Northwestern Mining & Exchange Co.

105 Pa. Super. 480 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 1932

“The cause of death may be shown by circumstances:” Riley v. Carnegie Steel Co., 276 Pa. 82, 86 ; Flucker v. Carnegie Steel Co., 263 Pa. 113 . … The referee, approved by the board, has found the necessary facts from competent evidence. Dr.

Koeppel v. Royal Clothing Co.

150 Pa. Super. 610 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1942

The board affirmed this finding, saying: “The contract entered into by the decedent with the defendant and the decedent’s activity required him to travel outside of the Commonwealth for periods in excess of 90 days.” … It was not incumbent upon claimant to prove that Koeppel was a “Pennsylvania employe” (see Stewart v. Thomas Earle & Sons, Inc., 150 Pa.

McKinley v. Wainstein

81 Pa. Super. 596 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 1923

Bank v. Penn Bank, 123 Pa. 283 ; Ward v. Tyler, 52 Pa. 393 ; Brown v. Clark, 14 Pa. 469 ; Hanratty v. Dougherty, 71 Pa. … They must draw the correct inferences: Corcoran v. Life Insurance Company, 183 Pa. 443 .

Phillips v. B. & N. Oil & Gas Co.

161 Pa. Super. 334 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 1947

The referee again dismissed the petition and was affirmed by the board. … Commonwealth v. Fugmann, 330 Pa. 4, 25 , et seq., 198 A. 99 ; and see Underhill’s Criminal Evidence, (4th ed.) §§239,243.

Commonwealth v. Hunter

240 Pa. Super. 23 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1976

McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300 (1967); Commonwealth v. Wilder, 461 Pa. 597 , 337 A.2d 564 (1975). … In Commonwealth v.

Roschak Et Ux. v. Vulcan Iron Works

157 Pa. Super. 227 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 1945

The board concluded that notice of disability was given within proper time and awarded compensation. … The judgment is reversed and the order of the board reinstated.

Shearer v. Moore

277 Pa. Super. 70 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 1980

In Furia v. … such department, board, commission, or officer, in any matter or thing relating to the public business of such department, board, commission or officer, without the approval in writing of the Attorney General.” *78 We agree