Commonwealth v. Katz
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
Plaintiff, as city solicitor of Scranton, filed a bill in equity, under sections 6 and 7 of the Act of March 27, 1923, P. L. 34, against defendant, for the purpose of having the latter’s premises declared a common nuisance and closed as such; whereupon a rule to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue was allowed and made absolute. Before the granting of the decree here complained of, defendant demurred to the bill, but the court, without passing upon the demurrer, found that a common nuisance, within the meaning of the act, was maintained by defendant. It ordered…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Borough of Sunbury v. Sunbury & Susquehanna Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Holden v. LlewellynSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Paxson's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
3Cited by22 opinions
- Lindenfelser v. LindenfelserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
- Parker v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. DriscollSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Philadelphia Record Co. v. Curtis-Martin Newspapers, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Summit Township v. FennellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.