Case law

Commonwealth v. Brown

252 Pa. Super. 613 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 1978

HOFFMAN and SPAETH, JJ., dissent for the reasons stated in Commonwealth v. Brown, 248 Pa.Superior Ct. 289, 375 A.2d 102 (1977).

Commonwealth v. Brown

54 Pa. Super. 439 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 1913

See Campbell v. Com., 84 Pa. 187 ; Com. v. Wasson, 42 Pa. Superior Ct. 38 . All the assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

Commonwealth v. Brown

287 Pa. Super. 450 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 29, 1981

Commonwealth v. Strachan, 460 Pa. 407, 410 , 333 A.2d 790, 791 (1975); see also Commonwealth v. Dancer, 460 Pa. 95 , 331 A.2d 435 (1975).

Commonwealth v. Brown

262 Pa. Super. 9 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 1978

Commonwealth v. Roux, 465 Pa. 482, 490 , 350 A.2d 867, 871 (1976). … Commonwealth v. Branch, 239 Pa.Super. 17 , 361 A.2d 435 (1976).

Commonwealth v. Brown

258 Pa. Super. 588 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 1978

Commonwealth v. Riggins, 474 Pa. 115 , 377 A.2d 140 (1977); Commonwealth v. Martin, 466 Pa. 118 , 351 A.2d 650 (1976); Commonwealth v. Wertz, 252 Pa.Super. 584 , 384 A.2d 933 (1978).

Commonwealth v. Brown

218 Pa. Super. 303 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 20, 1971

Commonwealth v. Lowery, 438 Pa. 89 , 263 A. 2d 332 (1970). Order reversed and the record remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Weight, P. J., dissents.

Commonwealth v. Brown

228 Pa. Super. 164 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 1974

Under Commonwealth v. Simpson, 222 Pa. Superior Ct. 296 , 294 A. 2d 805 (1972), appellant should have been sentenced under The New Drug Act which prescribes no minimum term of imprisonment.

Commonwealth v. Brown

214 Pa. Super. 452 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 1969

Brown, you can help yourself by giving us all the truth. A. I am telling the truth, Your Honor. He said I looked like the man. He got the wrong man. The Court: All right, I will find him guilty.” … McCray v. Rundle, 415 Pa. 65, 69 , 202 A. 2d 303 (1964). Also see Commonwealth ex rel. O’Lock v. Rundle, 415 Pa. 515 , 204 A. 2d 439 (1964) at 522, and Commonwealth ex rel. McKee v.

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Brown v. Hendrick

220 Pa. Super. 225 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 11, 1971

In Cooke v. … West v.

Decoster v. Brown (Et Ux.)

129 Pa. Super. 283 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 1937

The original suit was by the holder of a negotiable instrument against the maker and Mary Smith Brown, the indorser. … In Scott v.

Brown v. Heinlein & Quaker Highlands

303 Pa. Super. 566 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 1983

Brown v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp.

168 Pa. Super. 380 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 1951

Trainer v. Laird et al., 320 Pa. 414 , 183 A. 40 . … Peyton v. Equit. Life Assur. Soc., 159 Pa. Superior Ct. 318 , 48 A. 2d 145 . By the clear terms of the group policy and appellant’s individual *384 certificate thereunder, which.must be given effect (Lyford v.

Brown v. Exeter Machine Works

60 Pa. Super. 365 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 1915

part to be performed by one party consists of several distinct items and the price to be paid by the other is apportioned to each item or is left to be implied by law, generally the contract is held to be severable: Nolt v. … Superior Ct. 113 ; West Republic Mining Co. v. Jones, 108 Pa. 55 . Furthermore it may be urged that from the correspondence of the parties they regarded the contract as severable.

Brown v. Delaware Valley Transplant Program

420 Pa. Super. 84 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1992

Nicoletta v. Rochester Eye and Human Parts Bank, Inc., 136 Misc.2d 1065, 1068-69 , 519 N.Y.S.2d 928, 931 (1987). … This Court affirmed the dismissal of all counts against Attorney Heed in Brown v.

Stivers Temporary Personnel, Inc. v. Brown

2001 Pa. Super. 379 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2001

Bolmgren v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 758 A.2d 689, 690 (Pa.Super.2000). It is well settled that an appeal may be taken from a final order of the trial court. Techtmann v. Howie, 720 A.2d 143 (Pa.Super.1998). … The Explanatory Note to Pa.R.C.P. 1307 states: These Rules contemplate that the board will disperse after rendering the award, not to reconvene and not to hear any motions or applications to amend modify or change the award

Commonwealth ex rel. Brown v. Russell

204 Pa. Super. 722 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 1964

Commonwealth ex rel. Brown v. Myers

206 Pa. Super. 730 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 1965

Brown v. Elks Club No. 123

113 Pa. Super. 226 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 1934

When the record was before the board the defendant asked for a hearing de novo for the purpose of admitting the statement alleged to have been signed by claimant, whereupon the board admitted the statement, and by opinion … The board is the fact finding body, and, as stated in Stahl v.

Commonwealth ex rel. Brown v. Donnelly

211 Pa. Super. 704 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 1967

Commonwealth ex rel. Brown v. Myers

207 Pa. Super. 725 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 1966