weakening doctrine in Pennsylvania

1938The question presented is whether the remedy of setting aside a sheriff's sale on the ground of gross inadequacy in the sale price, as outlined in the concurring opinion in Beaver County Building Loan Assn. v. Winowich , 323 Pa. 483 , and followed in Hettler v. Shephard , 326 Pa. 165 , is applicable to this case.

1938The question presented is whether the remedy of setting aside a sheriff’s sale on the ground of gross inadequacy in the sale price, as outlined in the concurring opinion in Beaver County Building & Loan Assn. v. Winowich, 323 Pa. 483 , and followed in Hettler v. Shephard, 326 Pa. 165 , is applicable to this case.

1938As stated in Knox v. Noggle , supra, "A weakening of the rule . . . would seriously impair the stability of titles acquired through sheriff's sales." The petition in this case was presented in proper time.

1938As stated in Knox v. Noggle, supra, “A weakening of the rule . . . would seriously impair the stability of titles acquired through sheriff’s sales.” The petition in this case was presented in proper time.

1938The question presented is whether the remedy of setting aside a sheriff's sale on the ground of gross inadequacy in the sale price, as outlined in the concurring opinion in Beaver County Building Loan Assn. v. Winowich , 323 Pa. 483 , and followed in Hettler v. Shephard , 326 Pa. 165 , is applicable to this case.

1938The question presented is whether the remedy of setting aside a sheriff’s sale on the ground of gross inadequacy in the sale price, as outlined in the concurring opinion in Beaver County Building & Loan Assn. v. Winowich, 323 Pa. 483 , and followed in Hettler v. Shephard, 326 Pa. 165 , is applicable to this case.

1985Human Relations Commission v. Feeser, 469 Pa. 173 , 364 A.2d 1324 (1976), is inapplicable because tbe Supreme Court there found that there was no functional duplication, in that the state attorney representing the complainant did not, as a matter of fact, serve as advisor to the commission.

1985Human Relations Commission v. Feeser, 469 Pa. 173 , 364 A.2d 1324 (1976), is inapplicable because tbe Supreme Court there found that there was no functional duplication, in that the state attorney representing the complainant did not, as a matter of fact, serve as advisor to the commission.

1985The borough’s brief here argues for a weakening of the principle in Horn by quoting only from the dis senting opinion in Department of Insurance v. American Bankers Insurance Co., 478 Pa. 532 , 387 A.2d 449 (1978), but the per curiam majority decision in that ease invalidated an administrative decision on the commingling ground.

1985The borough’s brief here argues for a weakening of the principle in Horn by quoting only from the dis senting opinion in Department of Insurance v. American Bankers Insurance Co., 478 Pa. 532 , 387 A.2d 449 (1978), but the per curiam majority decision in that ease invalidated an administrative decision on the commingling ground.

1976In Weicht v. Automobile Banking Corporation, 354 Pa. 433 , 47 A.2d 705 (1946), I do not find a weakening of the doctrine as announced in Bulkley v. Eckert, 3 Pa. 368 (1846), and believe the doctrine of Custodia Legis as enunciated in Bulkley, supra, to still be the present law of this Commonwealth so long as the funds, as in the present case, are held in common with other funds.

1976In Weicht v. Automobile Banking Corporation, 354 Pa. 433 , 47 A.2d 705 (1946), I do not find a weakening of the doctrine as announced in Bulkley v. Eckert, 3 Pa. 368 (1846), and believe the doctrine of Custodia Legis as enunciated in Bulkley, supra, to still be the present law of this Commonwealth so long as the funds, as in the present case, are held in common with other funds.

1976In Weicht v. Automobile Banking Corporation, 354 Pa. 433 , 47 A.2d 705 (1946), I do not find a weakening of the doctrine as announced in Bulkley v. Eckert, 3 Pa. 368 (1846), and believe the doctrine of Custodia Legis as enunciated in Bulkley, supra, to still be the present law of this Commonwealth so long as the funds, as in the present case, are held in common with other funds.

1976In Weicht v. Automobile Banking Corporation, 354 Pa. 433 , 47 A.2d 705 (1946), I do not find a weakening of the doctrine as announced in Bulkley v. Eckert, 3 Pa. 368 (1846), and believe the doctrine of Custodia Legis as enunciated in Bulkley, supra, to still be the present law of this Commonwealth so long as the funds, as in the present case, are held in common with other funds.

1965Co., 267 Pa. 180 , 110 A. 79 . [**] The instant case arose on preliminary objections; depositions were thereafter taken in an attempt to avoid a sheriff's return because of its falsity. [*] For those few who, like the writer, are concerned about the preservation of the principle of Stare Decisis, I point out that this proposed prospective rule is not a violation or a weakening of that principle.

1965Co., 267 Pa. 180 , 110 A. 79 . [**] The instant case arose on preliminary objections; depositions were thereafter taken in an attempt to avoid a sheriff's return because of its falsity. [*] For those few who, like the writer, are concerned about the preservation of the principle of Stare Decisis, I point out that this proposed prospective rule is not a violation or a weakening of that principle.

1925In Hunter’s App., 40 Pa. 194 , a husband’s creditor attempted to sell the property of a wife, admittedly obtained by her under the will of her mother, perhaps on the theory that the old law, which gave her property to him, was not altogether abrogated by the Acts of April 11, 1848, P. L. 536, and April 22, 1850, P. L. 549.