Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
0.82s
136 Pa. Super. 242 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 24, 1939
S. v. Giles, 300 U. S. 42 . … Justice Brown, in the opinion of the Supreme Court in Com. v. Fisher, 213 Pa. 48 , 62 A. 198 .
Cited 15 timesPublishedJoyce v. Erie Insurance Exchange
2013 Pa. Super. 173 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 2013
, and attempted to bribe an employee to prevent his testimony before that Board. … The appellants were “indicted for perjury and interference with an agent of the National Labor Relations Board,” and each was convicted. Id.
Cited 58 timesPublished85 Pa. Super. 412 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 1925
No barm was done by that course: Dungan v. Ry. Co., 41 Pa. Superior Ct. 269 ; Com. v. Brown, 264 Pa. 85 . … This complaint is also dismissed: Com. v. Longwell, 79 Pa. Superior Ct. 68, 74 ; Com. v. Razmus, 210 Pa. 609, 611 .
Cited 1 timesPublishedSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 2, 2021
Commonwealth v. Diaz, 51 A.3d 884, 889 (Pa.Super. 2012). In this case, Appellant entered his guilty plea on October 20, 2020. … Diaz, 51 A.3d at 891 (quoting Commonwealth v. Fox, 953 A.2d 808, 811 (Pa.Super. 2008)).
Cited 0 timesUnpublished180 Pa. Super. 167 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 1956
Opinion by Woodside, J., The Board of School Directors of Susquehanna Township, Dauphin County, passed a resolution on March 22, 1954 imposing a tax on the transfer of title to real property situate in the township. … The plaintiffs relied upon City Stores Co. v.
Cited 1 timesPublishedHaas v. Northern Central Railway Co.
49 Pa. Super. 106 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 1912
Railroad Co. v. Beale, 73 Pa. 504 ; Penna. Railroad Co. v. Ackerman, 74 Pa. 265 ; Ellis v. Railroad Co., 138 Pa. 506 ; Lehigh Valley Railroad Co. v. Brandtmaier, 113 Pa. 610 ; Kinter v. … The facts in that case are quite similar to those in this one, and the comment of Judge Brown is specially applicable here.
Cited 0 timesPublishedCommonwealth Ex Rel. Bucksbarg v. Good
162 Pa. Super. 557 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 1947
Mattox v. Supt. of Co. Prison, supra. … The controlling principle is stated in Commonwealth v. Supt. of Co.
Cited 14 timesPublished2002 Pa. Super. 84 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2002
State v. … Commonwealth v. Brown, 786 A.2d 961, 966 (Pa.2001).
Cited 105 timesPublished441 Pa. Super. 171 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 1995
In In the Interest of McElrath v. Commonwealth, 405 Pa.Super. 431 , 592 A.2d 740 (1991), this Court set forth the standard to review the denial of a motion to suppress evidence. … Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 413 Pa.Super. 95 , 604 A.2d 1036 (1992).
Cited 5 timesPublishedOsborne v. Victor Dairies, Inc.
138 Pa. Super. 117 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1939
McConway & Torley Co., 149 Pa. 444 , 23 A. 341 ; Ashton v. Moyer, 8 W. N. C. 162. … Stony Brook *123 Lumber Co., 261 Pa. 241 , 104 A. 548 ; Presbyterian Board v. Gilbee, 212 Pa. 310, 314 , 61 A. 925 .
Cited 21 timesPublished179 Pa. Super. 639 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 1955
Rice v. Davis, 136 Pa. 439 , 20 A. 513 . … But in any view the defendant was not entitled to an unqualified affirmance of the point in the light of the settled principle of Rice v. Davis, supra. Cf. also, Rossi v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMiners Savings Bank v. Walsh Et Ux
148 Pa. Super. 389 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 1942
Peoples Savings & Trust Co., 279 Pa. 151 ; Steel v. Levy, 282 Pa. 338 ; Penn-O-Tex Oil and Leasehold Co. v. Big Four Oil & Gas Co., 298 Pa. 215 ; Yonder-smith v. Urban, 108 Pa. … To the cases cited by it may be added a later one, Shotkin v. Presbyterian Board, 343 Pa. 650 , 23 A. 2d 419 .
Cited 3 timesPublished428 Pa. Super. 136 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 1993
Commonwealth v. DiGiacomo, 463 Pa. 449, 455 , 345 A.2d 605, 608 (1975). See: Commonwealth v. McCloud, 457 Pa. 310 , 322 A.2d 653 (1974); Commonwealth v. Mobley, 450 Pa. 431 , 301 A.2d 622 (1973). … Co., 261 Ala. 526 , 75 So.2d 117 (1954); Tryon v. Casey, Mo.App., 416 S.W.2d 252 (1967); Brown v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 241 Minn. 15 , 62 N.W.2d 688 (1954) (dictum); Allen v. St.
Cited 15 timesPublished273 Pa. Super. 1 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 1979
The defendant cites Commonwealth v. Gross, 161 Pa.Super. 613 , 56 A.2d 303 (1948) wherein that court cites Commonwealth v. … Commonwealth v. Brown, 467 Pa. 512 , 359 A.2d 393 (1976).
Cited 15 timesPublished73 Pa. Super. 383 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 1920
The learned judge of the court below bases his decision on the case of McKinney v. Brown, 130 Pa. 365 . … Of such a character was the proceeding in Pan-tall v. Dickey, 123 Pa. 431 . That was a case where two nonresidents were summoned. The writ was issued . June 12th and returnable six days later.
Cited 0 timesPublishedSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2026
See Commonwealth v. … See Commonwealth v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished2017 Pa. Super. 154 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 19, 2017
See Commonwealth v. Hess, 810 A.2d 1249, 1252-53 (Pa. 2002); see also Commonwealth v. Davis, 867 A.2d 585, 588 (Pa. Super. 2005) (en banc). … Since Judge Brown did not respond within the allowed time period, the petition is deemed denied by operation of law.
Cited 36 timesPublished118 Pa. Super. 367 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 9, 1935
’s suggestion he prepared a short petition setting forth his inability, owing to the present distressing financial conditions, to make payment of the amount due, and that he had made application to the Federal Farm Loan Board … Assn. v. Nichols, 303 Pa. 434 , 154 A. 703 ; Union Trust Co. v. Boss, 305 Pa. 131 , 157 A. 462 .
Cited 3 timesPublishedSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 2016
Therefore, the third prong of Brown was proven by Appellant. … See Commonwealth v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedEdelstein v. Carole House Apartments, Inc.
220 Pa. Super. 298 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 1971
Macchia v. Megow, 355 Pa. 565 , 50 A.2d 314 (1947). … Brown v. Aiken, 329 Pa. 566 , 198 A. 441 (1938). The lower court agreed that a subsequent modification of an agreement for the sale of stock must be in writing, but found that the requirement may be waived.
Cited 23 timesPublished
Ask Donna