Cases

277 Pa. Superior Ct. 344 (1980) 419 A.2d 1176 Edward ALBRIGHT v. The CITY OF SHAMOKIN, Appellant. Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Argued June 26, 1979. Filed March 21, 1980. *345 Sanford S. Marateck, Shamokin, for appellant. Guy W. Schlesinger, Shamokin, for appellee. Before WIEAND, LOUIK and

Opinion by Judge Craig, Connoquenessing Township appeals from a decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, which dismissed a declaratory judgment action Connoquenessing had brought against Butler Township *532seeking the invalidation of a contract the two townships had executed to fix a boundary between the two townships. We must determin

Opinion by President Judge Crumlisi-i, Jr., For our consideration and resolution herein are litigous challenges to the construction of facilities to supply water for cooling a nuclear generating station in Limerick, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, and meeting the citizens ’ requirements of Bucks and Montgomery Counties. This construction has inspired widespread public discussion and disagre

Plaintiffs' son, John Lawrence, aged fifteen, with his companions, was coasting on Clearview Street, Scranton, *Page 218 on Christmas Eve. They gathered about a manhole in the street to await the arrival of another boy. While at the manhole, John struck a match on the iron cover to light a cigarette. An explosion of gas immediately followed, the boys were thrown in different directions, and the cover of the manhole was blown in the air, falling on John, s

This is an action brought by George P. Soth against the Town of Cody, for an injury claimed to have been sustained by him by reason of a defective sidewalk in said town. The case was submitted to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $10,000. This verdict was reduced by the court to the sum of $7,000, and judgment was rendered for plaintiff on April 13, 1925, in that amount. From this judgment the town has brought this case here by petition in error. The parties

KIVKO, P. J., Once again, we have before us prehminary objections in the nature of a demurrer and for a more specific complaint on behalf of some of the 14 additional defendants in this matter. In County of Northumberland v. The West End National Bank of Shamokin (I), 47 Northumb. 216 (October 7, 1975), this court sustained the objections raised by two of the additional defendants, Travelers Indemnity Company and United

OPINION OF THE COURT Kenneth R. Fisher, J. This matter involves a venerable local business, Maynards Electric Supply, Inc. and the brothers who are its sole shareholders and directors. Plaintiff, Glenn M. Heilman, holds the positions of vice-president and secretary, and defendant, Bruce Hellman, is the president and treasurer of Maynards. Glenn Heilman challenges a lease signed on behalf of the corporatio

BURR II, J., — The plaintiffs, Thomas C. Thompson Jr., John Petillo, William Thompson, RMH Enterprises Inc. and Quik-Tax Dollars Inc., as well as the defendants, Monetary Management Corp. and QTV Holdings Inc., have appealed from this court’s order of September 30,1999 denying the plaintiffs’ post-trial motions, denying the defendants’ post-trial motions, denying plaintiffs’ motion to mold the verdict, and plaintiffs’ su

OPINION MUIR, District Judge. The question before the Court is whether to grant plaintiffs’ renewed motion for an order that this action be maintained as a class action. The motion will be denied. In 1968, 64 plaintiffs, all of whom are members of the Independent Miners and Associates (IMA), filed the original complaint. They charged the defendants with a combination to monopolize sale

530 Pa. 44 (1992) 607 A.2d 204 Robert J. MELLOW, Senator, 22nd District, J. William Lincoln, Senator 32nd District, Leonard J. Bodack, Senator, 38th District, Michael A. O'Pake, Senator, 11th District, Patrick J. Stapleton, Senator, 41st District, Jeanette F. Reibman, Senator, 18th District, Vincent J. Fumo, Senator, 1st District, and H. Craig Lewis, Senator, 6th District, Individually and in their official capacities, Appellants,

This action in mandamus was filed in this court by one Robert N. Ort. The caption and style of the amended petition, which for the purposes of clarity we will hereafter refer to as the petition, are as in an action brought in the name of an individual, and there is no allegation that the action is brought in the name of the state of Ohio on the relation of Ort. The defendants are the Mayor and the Civil Service Commission of the city of Defiance. After formal allegations, Ort alleges t

WARD, Circuit Judge. The plaintiff was struck and injured by one of defendant’s trains at a street crossing in the city of Shamokin, Pa., and he brought suit to recover damages in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Richmond County. The defendant appeared specially to remove the cause to the District' Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York and in its petition alleged that it was a corporation

This is an action to rescind a contract of sale and purchase of certain real and personal property for alleged fraudulent representations, and to recover certain special damages. Each of the parties requested the court to make specified findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court wrote the words "Adopted" or "Refused" on each of the several requested findings and conclusions of the parties, to signify his adoption or rejection, but made no decision, as required by Sec. 105

WARD, Circuit Judge. January 31, 1913, the plaintiff in this case was struck by one of defendant’s trains as he was crossing Race street, Shamokin, Pa. November 25th he began suit to recover damages for his injuries in the Supreme Court of the state of New York for Richmond county. The defendant removed the case to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.

Opinion Per Curiam,- Our previous opinion in this case1 sets forth the nature, issues, and background of the litigation and obviates the need for extended discussion in the present sequel. That opinion embodied the conclusion of this Court that certain acts of the • Legislature,2 providing for the apportionment3 of both hous

Fuld, J. In March of 1955, James Maratta entered into an employment agreement with Exercycle Corporation. It provided that ‘ ‘ Exercycle employs Maratta as its Vice-President in charge of sales ” and that he hereby “ shall have general charge and supervision of the selling activities for Exercycle.” And, the agreement went on to recite, ‘1 Maratta accepts the employment and agrees to devote his best efforts and full time to Exerc

95 N.W.2d 457 (1959) 168 Neb. 49 Clarence GILLESPIE, Appellee, v. Michael HYNES, Appellant, Impleaded with Henrietta Hynes et al., Appellees. No. 34503. Supreme Court of Nebraska. March 6, 1959. McCarthy & Kneifl, South Sioux City, for appellant. Leamer & Graham, Norris G. Leamer, South Sioux City, for appellee Gillespie.</

WalKeb,, J. Tbe defendant was convicted in tbe Mayor’s Court of Morebead City for tbe violation of an ordinance of tbe town wbicb required “every person, firm, or corporation in tbe State, soliciting or taking orders for goods at retail, to be delivered in tbe town by nonresident merchants, firms, or corporations resident in tbe State, to pay a tax of $10 per day or $30 per year.” Defendant appealed to tbe Superior Court, in wbi

The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court. The defendant was convicted in the Mayor's Court of Morehead City for the violation of an ordinance of the town which required "every person, firm, or corporation in the State, soliciting or taking orders for goods at retail, to be delivered in the town by nonresident merchants, firms, or corporations resident in the State, to pay a tax of $10 per day or $30 per year." Defendant appealed to the Superior Court, in which a special v

Park, C. J. The principal question in this case is, whether the mortgage of the New Haven, Middletown & Willimantic Railroad Company to the treasurer of the state, made on the Blst of May, 1869, to secure the bonds of the company to the amount of $3,000,000, included such portion of the lands in question as were not necessary or convenient for railroad purposes. The property mortgaged is thus described in