Case law

United States v. Crum

404 F. Supp. 1161 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 1975

Cook, 384 U.S. 257 , 86 S.Ct. 1412 , 16 L.Ed.2d 516 , (1966): “But that canon ‘is not an inexorable command to override common sense and evident statutory purpose,’ United States v. Brown, 333 U.S. 18, 25 , 68 S. … S. v. Whitfield, 378 F.Supp. 184 (E.D.Pa.1974), aff'd., 515 F.2d 507 (3d Cir.). 3 . U. S. v. Gardner, supra. 4 . U. S. v.

United States v. Shuford

676 F. Supp. 656 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 1987

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). … US. v. Porter, 738 F.2d 622, 655 (4th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 983 , 105 S.Ct. 389 , 83 L.Ed.2d 323 .

Gabriel v. Giant Eagle, Inc.

124 F. Supp. 3d 550 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2015

The standards of conduct and duties owed by Pennsylvania pharmacists can be found in the Board’s “Standards of Practice,” 49 Pa. … In Weinberg v.

Marinclin v. Urling

262 F. Supp. 733 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 1967

Ruddock v. Bloedel Donovan Lumber Mills, 28 F.2d 684 (9th Cir. 1928); Flora Logging Co. v. Boeing, 43 F.2d 145 (D.Or.1930). … Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U.S. 527 , 26 S.Ct. 301 , 50 L.Ed. 581 (1906); Clark v. Nash, 198 U.S. 361 , 25 S.Ct. 676 , 49 L.Ed. 1085 (1905); Fallbrook Irrigation District v.

VUYANICH v. SMITHTON BOROUGH

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2023

Brown v. Muhlenberg Twp., 269 F.3d 205, 209 (3d Cir. 2001). The Fourth Amendment’s “‘central requirement’ is one of reasonableness.” J/linois v, McArthur, 531 U.S. 326, 330 (2001) (quoting Texas v. … Brown, 460 U.S. at 738 n.4 (1983); accord Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 133 n.5 (1990).

DOTAN v. CITY OF ALTOONA

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2025

Comm'rs of Bryan Cnty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404, 117 S.Ct. 1382, 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997); City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 823 (1985). … Berg v. County of Allegheny, 219 F.3d 261, 276 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Board of Cty. Comm'rs of Bryan Cty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1997)).

United States ex rel. Thompson v. Price

156 F. Supp. 578 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 1957

the long declared policy expressed in the many decisions of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court “ ‘offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.’ ” Brown … v.

WRIGHT CROFT v. DONEGAL TOWNSHIP

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2021

Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008); Greater Phila. Chamber of Commerce v. … Hill v. Bor. of Kutztown, 455 F.3d 225, 239 (3d Cir. 2006) (discussing Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000)).

Fitzgerald v. Mountain Laurel Racing, Inc.

464 F. Supp. 263 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 1979

Ill In Delaware River Port Authority v. … It has long been recognized that the right to one’s good reputation may come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, but rulings of the Supreme Court in Board of Regents v.

Lawrence v. Regal

851 F. Supp. 202 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 1993

The plaintiffs argue that under Pilot Life Insurance Company v. … Halifax Packing Company, Inc. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1, 6-8 , 107 S.Ct. 2211, 2215 , 96 L.Ed.2d 1 (1987).

WELTY v. WALTERS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 2024

BROWN, United States Magistrate Judge. I. … Hoxworth v.

Gatenby v. Altoona Aviation Corp.

268 F. Supp. 599 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 25, 1967

Christian Moerlein *604 Brewing Co., 172 U.S. 401 , 19 S.Ct. 233 , 43 L.Ed. 492 (1899); Spero-Nelson v. Brown, 175 F.2d 86 (6th Cir. 1949). In Mihalchak v. … In the Third Circuit cases noted, Cooper v. Brown, 126 F.2d 874 (3rd Cir., 1942), the Court applied the state’s “best evidence rule” as a matter of substantive law in the interpretation of a contract. In Waldron v.

McMahon v. Medical Protective Co.

92 F. Supp. 3d 367 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2015

(internal quotation marks omitted)); Brown v. U.S. Fid. & Gaur. … Brown, 860 A.2d at 501 (quoting O’Donnell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 734 A.2d 901, 910 (Pa.Super.Ct.1999)).

BOPP v. CLARK

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 31, 2022

Id. at 649. see, e.g., Wallace v. Mahanoy, 2 F.4th 133, 143-44 (3d Cir. 2021); Ross v. Varano, 712 F.3d 784, 798-804 (3d Cir. 2013); United States v. Thomas, 713 F.3d 165, 174-75 (3d Cir. 2013); Munchinski v. … Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

Herman v. CLEARFIELD COUNTY PA.

836 F. Supp. 1178 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 1993

See Hudson v. … See Pond v.

Welding Engineers, Inc. v. Ætna-Standard Engineering Co.

169 F. Supp. 146 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 1958

In Bulldog Electric Products Co. v. Cole Elec. … The other cases cited by plaintiff are Ronson Art Metal Works v. Brown & Bigelow, Inc., D.C.S.D.N.Y.1952, 104 F.Supp. 716 , and Transmirra Products Corp. v.

Tayfur v. Swepi LP

513 B.R. 282 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 2014

Brown v. Haight, 435 Pa. 12 , 255 A.2d 508, 510 (1969). Under Pennsylvania law, “the title conveyed in an oil and gas lease is inchoate, and is initially for the purpose of exploration and development.” T.W. … Derrickheim v. Brown, 305 Pa.Super. 173 , 451 A.2d 477, 479 (1982). Under Pennsylvania law, “the surface estate, the mineral estate, and the right to surface support” constitute “discrete estates in land.”

LEE v. SMITH

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 2020

Complex, 442 U.S 1, 7 (1979), and he does not claim that the Board violated his procedural due process rights when it rescinded his parole. See also Jago v. … Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 487 (3d Cir. 2001). Here, there was “some basis” for the Board’s decision, and its decision does not shock the conscience.

Means v. Maharowski

602 F. Supp. 71 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 1985

Under the rule announced in Parratt v. … In Rutledge v.

DRIVER OPPORTUNITY PARTNERS I, LP v. ADAMS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 2023

See, e.g., Blackrock Credit Allocation Income Tr. v. … The Board did not, for example, ‘significant[ly] change [the] corporate direction or policy’ after the notice deadline had expired as in Hubbard v.