Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Katz

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 29, 1924No. Appeal, 356PublishedCited by 22 opinions

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

  1. Borough of Sunbury v. Sunbury & Susquehanna Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
  2. Holden v. LlewellynSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
  3. Paxson's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Lindenfelser v. LindenfelserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  2. Parker v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
  3. Pennsylvania Railroad v. DriscollSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  4. Philadelphia Record Co. v. Curtis-Martin Newspapers, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  5. Summit Township v. FennellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API