Case law

Gray v. Zoning Hearing Board

71 Pa. D. & C.2d 484 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County · Feb 18, 1975

In Jones v. Zoning Hearing Board of Lower Merion Township, 7 Pa. … Zoning Hearing Board v. Slavitz, 3 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 495 , 284 A. 2d 337 (1971).”

Milberry v. Board of Education

69 Pa. D. & C.2d 280 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Mar 20, 1975

Article B-V §2f(ii) of the present agreement between the Board of Education of the School District of Philadelphia and the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers provides in part the following: “The employe may invoke the grievance … In Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. State College Area School District, 9 Pa.

Kropf v. Board of Education of New York

34 Misc. 2d 8 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1962

Neither is there any merit to her claim that she is entitled to examine the various medical reports submitted by the physicians of the Board of Education (Silverman v. Moss, 107 N. Y. S. 2d 475). … This is particularly so where, as in the present case, the decision made by the Board does not appear to be arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable (Munter v. Theobald, 101 N. Y. S. 2d 475, supra).

Rees v. Board of Supervisors

39 Pa. D. & C.3d 101 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County · Aug 19, 1985

E.g., Nascone v. Ross Township Zoning Hearing Board, 81 Pa. Commw. 482 , 473 A.2d 1141 (1984). … Commw. 13 , 403 A.2d 1010 (1979); Board of Commissioners of O’Hara Township v. Hakim, 19 Pa. Commw. 661 , 339 A.2d 905 (1975).

Smith v. State Board of Law Examiners

9 Fla. Supp. 66 · Circuit Court of the 2nd Judicial Circuit of Florida, Leon County · Jul 15, 1955

Building Trades Council v. Board of Education

1 Ill. Cir. Ct. 378 · Illinois Circuit Court · Mar 12, 1898

upon the payroll of the board.” … Certainly no mmdamus would lie against the board of education to make it insert in its contract a “union labor” or a “non-union labor” clause, and there is no agreement between the "board and the Building Trades Council which

4031 Ltd. Partnership v. Board of Supervisors

21 Va. Cir. 384 · Fairfax County Circuit Court · Oct 23, 1990

JAMBORSKY The matter is before the Court on the motions for summary judgment filed respectively by 4031 Limited Partnership (plaintiff) and the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County (defendant). … Co. v. Avis, 124 Va. 711, 716 , 98 S.E. 638, 639 (1919).

Fisher v. Board of Supervisors of Ontario

59 Misc. 2d 953 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1969

State of New York, 54 Misc 2d 367 ; Foster v. Board of Supervisors County of Livingston, [Easton, J., Oct. 29, 1968].) … (Iannucci v. Board of Super visors, 20 N Y 2d 244, 252, supra.)

People ex rel. Sherman v. Board of Supervisors

30 How. Pr. 173 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1865

Said report was read to the board in detail: was amended by allowing an account rejected, and then as amended, adopted by said board. … is the determination of the board.

Stockman v. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors

6 Va. Cir. 368 · Loudoun County Circuit Court · Jul 31, 1986

Cupp v. Board of Supervisors, 227 Va. 580, 589 (1984). Mr. Stockman must plead facts as might justify a conclusion that he has a "personal stake in the outcome of the controversy." … While the Court recognizes that a taxpayer may, under certain circumstances, have standing to pursue an action against the Board, this is not such a circumstance. Cf. Roper and al. v.

Mars Associates, Inc. v. Board of Education

96 Misc. 2d 393 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 8, 1878

On December 29, 1975, the board acknowledged in writing that certain concrete installations, which it called "contract work” remained to be installed. … Both parties, litigating in the shadow of Matter of Board of Educ. (Wager Corp.) ( 37 NY2d 283, 290 ), argue the date when damages were "ascertainable”.

Briguglio v. New York State Board of Parole

55 Misc. 2d 584 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1968

Petitioner, an inmate of Attica State Prison, seeks judgment upon this article 78 proceeding voiding a determination of the Board of Parole or alternatively granting a de novo hearing before said board. … Heavily relied upon is the case of Mempa v. Rhay, decided November 13, 1967, by the United States Supreme Court ( 389 U. S. 128, 134 ).

McDermott v. Board of Commissioners

74 Pa. D. & C.2d 167 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Chester County · Aug 19, 1974

Lastly, in order to obtain an injunction, the moving party must establish actual and substantial injury, done or threatened to be done, by clear and convincing proof: Brown v. Lehman, 141 Pa. … Equity will not concern itself with matters de minimis: Food Fair Stores v.

Leicht v. Board of Excise

46 N.Y. St. Rep. 835 · The Superior Court of New York City · May 26, 1892

Wynehamer v. The People, 13 N. Y., 378 . … Chew Heong v. U. S., 112 U. S., 559 ; Salters v. Tobias, 3 Paige, 344 ; Hill v. Duncan, 110 Mass., 240 .

Austin v. Dauphin County Board of Elections

79 Pa. D. & C. 562 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County · Aug 28, 1951

There is provision under section 308 for the public inspection of records in the custody of the County Election Board “. . . only after the county board shall, in the course of the computation and canvassing of the returns … that the district register is a record which is returned to that board for purposes of such computation.

Barner v. Board of Supervisors

48 Pa. D. & C.3d 15 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County · May 1, 1987

In Harris et al. v. Oil Service Inc. et al., 78 Pa. … Township of Reserve v. Zoning Hearing Board of Reserve Township, supra. We do not have jurisdiction to decide this case on the merits.

Kenwood Country Club v. Board of Liquor Control

68 Ohio Law. Abs. 326 · Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division · Jan 29, 1953

“Whereupon the Board of Liquor Control being fully advised in the premises and upon the consideration thereof finds that said appeal is not well taken and should not be allowed and the Board further finds that the appellant … of Liquor Control v.

Board v. Bell Telephone Co.

43 Pa. D. & C.2d 707 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County · Mar 31, 1967

The measure of damages recoverable for a breach of contract is well established and was clearly stated in Taylor v. … . & C. 482, 494; Skeels v. Universal C.I.T. Credit Corporation, 335 F. 2d 846, 852 ; Feist v. Plymouth Mutual Life Ins. Co., 48 Luz. 296, 298.

Des Pres v. Niagara County Board of Supervisors

37 Misc. 2d 1087 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 17, 1963

The petitioner points to the case Dawson v. Knox ( 231 App. Div. 490 , affd. 267 N. … The leading case on this subject, Thompson v. Hofstatter ( 265 N.

Plavin v. Zoning Hearing Board

36 Pa. D. & C.3d 256 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County · Aug 7, 1985

“The impact of zoning regulations relates to matters of use of the subject premises, not to the identity of the owner or occupier”: Widenmeyer v. Northampton Twp. Zoning Bd. of Adj., 12 Bucks 582 (1962). … Zoning ordinances have to do with the use and not the ownership of land.’ ” Widenmeyer v. Northampton Township Zoning Board of Adjustment, 12 Bucks Co. L. Rep. 582, 585 (1962).