proceedings rule in Pennsylvania

1959After a hearing the court below has discretionary power over the subject, and its decision is not reviewable here [except for abuse of discretion].” In Com. v. McNabb, supra, 91 Pa. Superior Ct. 582, 583, 584 , President Judge Porter said: “This appellant was given a full opportunity to be heard, in the proceedings under his rule to show cause and after such hearing the court had a discretionary power over the subject, and its decision can only be reversed upon the ground that it involved a manifest abuse of discretion: Com. v. Doyle, 16 Pa. Superior Ct. 171 ; Com. v. Charters, 20 Pa. Superior

1927This appellant was given a full opportunity to be *584 heard, in the proceedings under his rule to show cause and after such hearing the court had a discretionary power over the subject, and its decision can only be reversed upon the ground that it involved a manifest abuse of discretion: Com. v. Doyle, 16 Pa. Superior Ct. 171 ; Com. v. Charters, 20 Pa. Superior Ct. 599 ; Com. v. Kocher, 23 Pa. Superior Ct. 65 .

1959After a hearing the court below has discretionary power over the subject, and its decision is not reviewable here [except for abuse of discretion].” In Com. v. McNabb, supra, 91 Pa. Superior Ct. 582, 583, 584 , President Judge Porter said: “This appellant was given a full opportunity to be heard, in the proceedings under his rule to show cause and after such hearing the court had a discretionary power over the subject, and its decision can only be reversed upon the ground that it involved a manifest abuse of discretion: Com. v. Doyle, 16 Pa. Superior Ct. 171 ; Com. v. Charters, 20 Pa. Superior

1927This appellant was given a full opportunity to be *584 heard, in the proceedings under his rule to show cause and after such hearing the court had a discretionary power over the subject, and its decision can only be reversed upon the ground that it involved a manifest abuse of discretion: Com. v. Doyle, 16 Pa. Superior Ct. 171 ; Com. v. Charters, 20 Pa. Superior Ct. 599 ; Com. v. Kocher, 23 Pa. Superior Ct. 65 .

2025With respect to his due process claim under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), did the PCRA court err in concluding that there would have been no reasonable probability of a different outcome at the proceedings had defense counsel been provided with evidence of Detective Baker’s misconduct and had the opportunity to present it? 3.

2019Id.

2012Id. at 184 .

1961It is well settled that a contract between an employer and an employe which contains restrictive covenants against competition by the employe after the termination of his contract is valid and will be sustained unless the employe proves that the contract constitutes an unreasonable or illegal restraint on trade: Plunkett Chemical Co. v. Reeve, 373 Pa. 513 ; Harris Calorific Co. v. Marra, 345 Pa. 464 , and Seligman & Latz of Pittsburgh v. Vernillo, 382 Pa. 161 .

1961It is well settled that a contract between an employer and an employe which contains restrictive covenants against competition by the employe after the termination of his contract is valid and will be sustained unless the employe proves that the contract constitutes an unreasonable or illegal restraint on trade: Plunkett Chemical Co. v. Reeve, 373 Pa. 513 ; Harris Calorific Co. v. Marra, 345 Pa. 464 , and Seligman & Latz of Pittsburgh v. Vernillo, 382 Pa. 161 .

1961It is well settled that a contract between an employer and an employe which contains restrictive covenants against competition by the employe after the termination of his contract is valid and will be sustained unless the employe proves that the contract constitutes an unreasonable or illegal restraint on trade: Plunkett Chemical Co. v. Reeve, 373 Pa. 513 ; Harris Calorific Co. v. Marra, 345 Pa. 464 , and Seligman & Latz of Pittsburgh v. Vernillo, 382 Pa. 161 .

1958For the same reason, his position cannot be improved by his subsequent discovery of incriminating facts except in so far as they may be sufficient to convince a jury that the accused was, in fact, guilty of the offense charged against him under the rule stated in §657.” See also: Taylor v. American International Shipbuilding Corporation, 275 Pa. 229, 231 , 119 A. 130 ; Groda v. American Stores Company, 315 Pa. 484, 490 , 173 A. 419 ; Wolf v. Stern, 71 Pa. Superior Ct. 191, 192

1958For the same reason, his position cannot be improved by his subsequent discovery of incriminating facts except in so far as they may be sufficient to convince a jury that the accused was, in fact, guilty of the offense charged against him under the rule stated in §657.” See also: Taylor v. American International Shipbuilding Corporation, 275 Pa. 229, 231 , 119 A. 130 ; Groda v. American Stores Company, 315 Pa. 484, 490 , 173 A. 419 ; Wolf v. Stern, 71 Pa. Superior Ct. 191, 192

1958For the same reason, his position cannot be improved by his subsequent discovery of incriminating facts except in so far as they may be sufficient to convince a jury that the accused was, in fact, guilty of the offense charged against him under the rule stated in §657.” See also: Taylor v. American International Shipbuilding Corporation, 275 Pa. 229, 231 , 119 A. 130 ; Groda v. American Stores Company, 315 Pa. 484, 490 , 173 A. 419 ; Wolf v. Stern, 71 Pa. Superior Ct. 191, 192

1958For the same reason, his position cannot be improved by his subsequent discovery of incriminating facts except in so far as they may be sufficient to convince a jury that the accused was, in fact, guilty of the offense charged against him under the rule stated in §657.” See also: Taylor v. American International Shipbuilding Corporation, 275 Pa. 229, 231 , 119 A. 130 ; Groda v. American Stores Company, 315 Pa. 484, 490 , 173 A. 419 ; Wolf v. Stern, 71 Pa. Superior Ct. 191, 192

1949Whether the notation is ‘amount unknown’ or ‘amount disputed’, the listing of a claimant among the bankrupt’s creditors should be deemed a recognition of such claimant as a creditor for such amount as he may establish.” In Kreitlein v. Ferger, 238 U. S. 21 , a schedule listing a creditor’s residence as Indianapolis was held prima facie sufficient.

1942Transit Co., 325 Pa. 427 , 190 A. 897 ) and which would have required disclosure of relevant matter without the subsequent proceedings by rule to show cause leading to the order now complained of.

1942Transit Co., 325 Pa. 427 , 190 A. 897 ) and which would have required disclosure of relevant matter without the subsequent proceedings by rule to show cause leading to the order now complained of.

1927This appellant was given a full opportunity to be *584 heard, in the proceedings under his rule to show cause and after such hearing the court had a discretionary power over the subject, and its decision can only be reversed upon the ground that it involved a manifest abuse of discretion: Com. v. Doyle, 16 Pa. Superior Ct. 171 ; Com. v. Charters, 20 Pa. Superior Ct. 599 ; Com. v. Kocher, 23 Pa. Superior Ct. 65 .

1920To illustrate: Piggott and Wright were trust officers of plaintiff, authorized to receive payment of this debt; the burden of proof is on plaintiff to show it was not paid to them: Mr. Gest’s testimony does not cover that; neither their carefulness nor integrity was shown; the presumption of innocence does not apply; defendant’s nonresidence and plaintiff’s ignorance of his having assets are not even circumstances to rebut the presumption of payment; neither the proceedings on the rule to dissolve the attachment nor the litigation in the federal courts have any relevancy to the question; no on

1920To illustrate: Piggott and Wright were trust officers of plaintiff, authorized to receive payment of this debt; the burden of proof is on plaintiff to show it was not paid to them: Mr. Gest’s testimony does not cover that; neither their carefulness nor integrity was shown; the presumption of innocence does not apply; defendant’s nonresidence and plaintiff’s ignorance of his having assets are not even circumstances to rebut the presumption of payment; neither the proceedings on the rule to dissolve the attachment nor the litigation in the federal courts have any relevancy to the question; no on

1919The proceedings are no bar to the present action, Carey v. Carey, 25 Pa. Superior Ct. 223 , but they are pertinent to show nonsupport. ' The wife is charged with having accused several women with undue familiarity with her husband, and attributing actions to them derogatory to their reputations.

1918The proceedings at bar being purely statutory, and differing from the common law, as already noted, on certiorari our jurisdiction is more analogous to that exercised upon the examination of equity proceedings than on the review of common law actions; and in the former class of cases the opinion of the chancellor may be looked at to discover the reasons for his action: Independence Party Nomination, 208 Pa. 108, 111 ; Foy’s Election, 228 Pa. 14 , 16 et seq.; Franklin Film Mfg.

1918The proceedings at bar being purely statutory, and differing from the common law, as already noted, on certiorari our jurisdiction is more analogous to that exercised upon the examination of equity proceedings than on the review of common law actions; and in the former class of cases the opinion of the chancellor may be looked at to discover the reasons for his action: Independence Party Nomination, 208 Pa. 108, 111 ; Foy’s Election, 228 Pa. 14 , 16 et seq.; Franklin Film Mfg.

1918Corp., supra. Therefore, on the present review, this court may examine all that is properly contained (according to the provisions of the Act of 1915, supra) in the record sent to the common pleas, including the findings and reasons stated in the adjudications of the referee and board; and, of course, also including the reasons given by the court below as the “basis” of its decision, but not the notes of testimony.