Case law

In Re Quattrone Accountants, Inc.

100 B.R. 235 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 2, 1989

The Board turned to debtor for assistance and guidance. … Bank of Dallas v. United States, 666 F.2d 743, 751 (5th Cir.1982); Anderson v. United States, 561 F.2d 162 (8th Cir.1977); Donelan Phelps & Co., Inc. v. United States, 681 F.Supp. 615, 619 (E.D.Mo.1987).

KEENER

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 24, 2026

v. … See Razzoli v. FCI Allenwood, 200 Fed.

Steinberg v. American Bantam Car Co.

76 F. Supp. 426 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 1948

Deal v. Erie Coal & Coke Co., 248 Pa. 48 , 93 A. 829 ; Lutz v. Webster, Appellant, 249 Pa. 226 , 94 A. 834 ; Jenkins et al. v. Baxter et al., 160 Pa. 199 , 28 A. 682 ; Tunis et al. v. … Audenried v. Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Co., 68 Pa. 370 , 8 Am.Rep. 195 ; Fredericks et al. v. Huber et al., 180 Pa. 572 , 37 A. 90 ; Warner Bros., Inc., v. Gittone, supra; Ball v.

Jonnet Development Corp. v. Caliguiri

558 F. Supp. 962 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 1983

Conrail’s decision was unilateral because it was free to sell the property to anyone, and all offers were subject to approval of the board. … Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 , 63 S.Ct. 307 , 87 L.Ed. 315 (1943). In Community Communications Co., Inc. v.

Armbruster v. Erie Civic Center Authority

937 F. Supp. 484 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 1995

In Fuentes v. … See Ezold v.

Zellem v. Herring

102 F. Supp. 105 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 1952

Spero-Nelson v. Brown, 6 Cir., 1949, 175 F.2d 86 ; Caldwell v. Southern Pac. Co., D.C.S.D.Cal.1947, 71 F.Supp. 955 ; Chesevski v. Strawbridge & Clothier, D.C.N.J.1938, 25 F.Supp. 325 . … Cir. 1950, 182 F.2d 703 ; Spero-Nelson v. Brown, supra. The function of the Court in the exercise-of such discretion has been concisely stated by Judge Yankwich in Caldwell v. Southern Pac.

Walters v. McKinnis

221 F. 746 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 6, 1915

Ed. 868 , Reid v. Jones, 187 U. S. 153 , 23 Sup. Ct. 89, 47 L. Ed. 116 , Drury v. Lewis, 200 U. S. 1 , 26 Sup. Ct. 229, 50 L. Ed. 343 , Urquhart v. Brown, 205 U. S. 179 , 27 Sup. Ct. 459, 51 L. Ed. 760 , Glasgow v. … In Urquhart v. Brown, supra, Brown was charged in the state court of the state of Washington with the crime of murder, and was tried and acquitted on the ground of insanity.

Folk v. Atty. Gen. of Commonwealth of Pa.

425 F. Supp. 2d 663 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2006

Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369, 373 , 107 S.Ct. 2415 , 96 L.Ed.2d 303 (1987); Greenholtz v. … The parole board is an executive branch agency. See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 549 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000)(describing parole board officials as executive branch officials).

Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers, Local 400 v. Langer

546 F. Supp. 434 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 1982

of Education v. … See, Haffer v. Temple University of Com. System, 524 F.Supp. 531 (E.D.Pa.1981); Wright v. Columbia University, 520 F.Supp. 789 (E.D.Pa.1981); Poole v. South Plainfield Board of Education, 490 F.Supp. 948 (D.N.J.1980).

CUNNINGHAM

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2026

Court is not permitted to second guess the Parole Board’s decisions or factual findings in reviewing a habeas petition. … See e.g., Richardson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 423 F.3d 282, 385 (3d Cir. 2005); Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F3d 480 (3d Cir. 2001); Mathis v.

Hoots v. Pennsylvania

539 F. Supp. 335 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 12, 1982

Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 448 F.2d 746, at 753-54 , (5th Cir. 1971). … See generally, Swann v.

Banaschoski v. General Deliveries, Inc.

226 F. Supp. 349 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 5, 1964

Justice Cohen in Brown v. … Ann. § 1 et seq.; Maio v. Fahs, 339 Pa. 180 , 14 A.2d 105 ; Brown v. Dickey, 397 Pa. 454 , 155 A.2d 836 ; Kim v.

Rye v. ERIE COUNTY PRISON

689 F. Supp. 2d 770 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 14, 2009

.”); Brown v. … Camp v. Brennan, 219 F.3d 279, 281 (3d Cir.2000). In this context, “available” means “capable of use” (Brown v.

Murphy v. American Barge Line Co.

74 F. Supp. 886 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 24, 1947

Smith v. Lykes Brothers-Ripley S.S. Co., 5 Cir., 105 F.2d 604, 605 . … Calmar Steamship Corporation v. Taylor, 303 U.S. 525 , 58 S.Ct. 651 , 82 L.Ed. 993 ; Loverich v. Warner Co., 3 Cir., 118 F.2d 690 , certiorari denied 313 U.S. 577 , 61 S.Ct. 1104 , 85 L.Ed. 1535 .” In Moyle v.

Hyman v. Morris

320 F. Supp. 3d 707 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 2018

Abbott, 164 F.3d at 146 (citing Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 , 569, 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) ). … Brown v. City of Philadelphia, No. 10-CV-2687, 2012 WL 1758172 , at *4 (E.D. Pa. May 16, 2012) (citing Fuentes v.

In re Pittsburgh Industrial Iron Works

179 F. 151 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 1910

In Brown v. Hare, 3 H. & N. 484, Pollock, C. B., speaking for the court, said: “In many mercantile contracts it is stipulated that the seller shall deliver the goods ‘f. o. b.’ … The meaning of these words is that the seller is to put the goods on board at his own expense or on account of the person for whom they are shipped and the goods are at the risk of the buyer from the time they are so on board

Konovsky v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

185 F. Supp. 325 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 1960

Modarelli, 3 Cir., 1952, 196 F.2d 1010 , approved by the Supreme Court in Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 1955, 349 U.S. 29 , 75 S.Ct. 544 , 99 L.Ed. 789 ; Brown v. Woodring, D.C.M.D.Pa.1959, 174 F.Supp. 640 2 ; Jurgelis v. … However, in Brown v. Woodring, supra, and Jurgelis v. Southern Motors Express, supra, both motor vehicle accident cases, citing Norwood v.

Joy Manufacturing Corp. v. Pullman-Peabody Co.

729 F. Supp. 449 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 1, 1989

In Mills v. … Barton v.

Beaver v. Borough of Johnsonburg

410 F. Supp. 556 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 1976

In Norate Corporation v. … Similarly the ordinance in question here establishes no guidelines for the Board of Adjustment to determine when a permit should be issued for an otherwise prohibited use. Also in Commercial Properties, Inc. v.

United States ex rel. Henderson v. Pennsylvania

287 F. Supp. 372 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 1968

Jones v. Rundle, 33 Pa.Dist. & Co.2d 9, 81 Dauph. 201 (1964, aff’d 413 Pa. 456 , 199 A.2d 135 ; Commonwealth ex rel. Haun v. … Dalton v. Myers, 71 Dauph. 145 (1958); Money v. Pennsylvania Board of Parole, 68 Dauph. 238 (1956).