Case law

United States ex rel. Peterson v. Russell

266 F. Supp. 93 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 5, 1967

Lamborn v. Rundle, 251 F.Supp. 766 (E.D.Pa.1966); United States ex rel. Gary v. Hendrick, 238 F.Supp. 757 (E.D.Pa.1965); United States ex rel. Hazen v. … Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 , 43 S.Ct. 265 , 67 L.Ed. 543 (1923); Powell v. State of Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 , 53 S.Ct. 55 , 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932); Brown v.

Vernau v. Bowen Enterprises, Inc.

651 F. Supp. 256 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 1986

Laborers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Kaufman & Broad, 707 F.2d 412 , 415 (9th Cir.1983). … Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Mullins, 455 U.S. 72 , 102 S.Ct. 851 , 70 L.Ed.2d 833 (1982); Carpenters Local Union No. 1846 v. Pratt-Farnsworth, Inc., 690 F.2d 489 , 518 (5th Cir.1982).

Preveden v. Croatian Fraternal Union of America

120 F. Supp. 33 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 1954

See Sanderson v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 1902, 204 Pa. 182 , 53 A. 767 ; Lodge No. 19 Svete Ime Isusovo v. Svi Sveti, 1936, 323 Pa. 292 , 185 A. 650 ; Bogadek v. … to ask the High Trial Board to assess damages against the individual defendants.

Leighty Ex Rel. Leighty v. Laurel School District

457 F. Supp. 2d 546 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 2006

L.E. v. Ramsey Board of Education, 435 F.3d 384, 389 (3d Cir.2006). In Shore Regional High School Board of Education v. … Ridgewood Board of Education v. N.E., 172 F.3d 238, 247 (3d Cir.1999); Polk v. Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit 16, 853 F.2d 171, 184 (3d Cir.1988). 6 .

Swift v. McKeesport Housing Authority

726 F. Supp. 2d 559 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 2010

Grayson v. … Auth., 33 F.Supp.2d 1354, 1361-62 (S.D.Fla.1999) (under Florida law, holding that a housing authority’s board of directors, not its executive director, had final policymaking authority); Crisonino v. New York Hous.

United States v. Del Sandro

465 F. Supp. 1009 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 1979

The Government relies, of course, upon United States v. Rosinsky, 547 F.3d 249 , (CA 4, 1977); and the defendants rely upon the contra decisions in United States v. … Brown, 536 F.2d 117 , (CA 6, 1976), and United States v. Euge, 587 F.2d 25 , (CA 8, 1978). It is unnecessary for me as a District Judge to analyze the decisions cited.

Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Pittsburgh & West Virginia Railroad

101 F. Supp. 3d 497 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 2015

Co. v. Norwin Sch. Dist., 544 F.3d 229, 243 (3d Cir.2008) (quoting Murphy v. Duquesne Univ. … Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co., — Pa. -, 106 A.3d 48, 60 (2014). However, in Bruno v.

Krouse v. American Sterilizer Co.

872 F. Supp. 203 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 1994

In Mitchell v. … Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147 , 104 S.Ct. 1723 , 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984); Firle v. Mississippi State Dept. of Educ., 762 F.2d 487 (5th Cir.1985); Mumphrey v.

Bovard v. The Mayflower

39 F. 41 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 1889

The Mayflower was an excursion boat plying in the vicinity of Pittsburgh, and there was a lunch-counter on board the boat for the accommodation of the passengers. The claim of J. 0. … Mooney v. Evans, 6 Ired. Eq. 363 .

In re Highwood Cemetery Ass'n

116 F. Supp. 898 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 1953

Rosa v. Hummel, 252 Pa. 578 , 97 A. 942 ; Loughney v. Page, 320 Pa. 508 , 182 A. 700 ; Casari v. Victoria Amusement Ent., Inc., 327 Pa. 382 , 194 A. 503 ; Hemminger v. Leidigh, 21 Pa.Dist. & Co. 287; A. B. … Dick Company v. Third National Bank, 17 Pa.Dist. & Co. 549.

United States v. Knappke

125 F. Supp. 303 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 1954

I am forced to conclude that the National Board proceeded on the mistaken legal theory “that as a matter of *305 law Jehovah’s Witnesses are not conscientious objectors.” United States v. … See pertinent comments of Judge Goodrich in the dissenting opinion in United States v. Hagaman, supra, and the eomment of this Court in United States v. Kezmes, D.C., 125 F.Supp. 300 .

Boyle v. Carnegie-Mellon University

648 F. Supp. 1318 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 10, 1985

See, e.g., Patzer v. Board of Regents, 577 F.Supp. 1553, 1559 (W.D.Wis.1984), rev’d on other grounds, 763 F.2d 851 (7th Cir.1985); Greene v. County School Board, 524 F.Supp. 43, 44-45 (E.D.Va.1981); Bennun v. … Board of Governors, 413 F.Supp. 1274, 1280 (D.N.J.1976). We believe this reasoning is equally persuasive in cases brought under the ADEA. But see Dyer v.

BEAMER

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 2026

Despite the title of the form used by Petitioner, it is clear that he seeks federal habeas relief from a decision of the Pennsylvania Parole Board (the “Board’’) implicating Petitioner’s current state custody. … See, □□□□□ Williams v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, No. 16-868, 2016 WL 3406241, at *1 (M.D. Pa. June 15, 2016).

Protos v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.

615 F. Supp. 1513 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 1985

As in Brown v. … And third, the subsequent decision of the Court of Appeals in Brown v.

Brunwasser v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.

541 F. Supp. 1338 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 1982

The Civil Aeronautics Board reviews these proposed tariffs and, if it finds that any tariff is inconsistent with CAB policy, the Board is empowered to reject that tariff. … Tariffs rejected by the Board are void. 49 U.S.C. § 1373 (a).

Lieberman v. Cook

343 F. Supp. 558 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 1972

However, in Moyer v. … See Novakovsky v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 219 Pa.Super. 5 , 280 A.2d 669 (1971); Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Barbera, 443 Pa. 93 , 277 A.2d 821 (1971); Great American Ins. Co. v.

Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp. v. United States

325 F. Supp. 352 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 1971

Waite v. United States, 161 F.Supp. 856, 860 (W.D.Pa.1958); W. J. Dillner Transfer Co. v. I. C. C., 193 F.Supp. 823, 826 (W.D.Pa.), aff’d., 368 U.S. 6 , 82 S.Ct. 16 , 7 L.Ed.2d 16 (1961); W. J. Dillner Transfer Co. v. … Dillner Transfer Co. v. I. C. C., supra, 193 F.Supp. at 827-828 . Moreover, in the leading case of Universal Camera Corp. v. N. L. R.

Barnes & Tucker Co. v. UNITED MINE WKRS. OF AMER.

338 F. Supp. 924 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 1972

In Local 174, Teamsters etc. v. … Then a new board (two members representing employees and two the employer) are designated to review the matter. If the board fails to agree, the matter shall be referred to an umpire.

Lesko v. Jeffes

689 F. Supp. 508 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 2, 1988

A substantially similar issue was pending review before the United States Supreme Court in the case of California v. Brown, cert. granted, 476 U.S. 1157 , 106 S.Ct. 2274 , 90 L.Ed.2d 717 (1986). … Zicarelli v. Gray, 543 F.2d 466, 471 (3d Cir.1976); see also Brown v. Fauver, 819 F.2d 395 (3d Cir.1987). The exhaustion requirement is satisfied once the federal claim has been “fairly presented” to the state courts.

Chambers Development Co. v. Browning-Ferris Industries

590 F. Supp. 1528 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 6, 1984

Board of Education of Newark, 534 F.2d 1094 (3d Cir.1976); Butz v. Hertz Corporation, 554 F.Supp. 1178 (W.D.Pa. 1983). … Browning-Ferris, Inc., 560 F.2d 818 (7th Cir.1977), *1546 (Transportation of trash across state lines meets the jurisdictional test.) C.