# Hinkle v. HJ Heinz Company

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 19, 1975 · 462 Pa. 111

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9695864

## Case

- **Full name:** Darious E. HINKLE, Appellant, v. H. J. HEINZ COMPANY, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** May 19, 1975
- **Citations:** 462 Pa. 111; 337 A.2d 907; 1975 Pa. LEXIS 839
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Roberts
- **Judges:** Jones, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix, Manderino
- **Cited by:** 47 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9695864

## Opinion text

ROBERTS, Justice
(concurring).
I join the Opinion of the Court, but believe that Mauchline v. State Insurance Fund, 279 Pa. 524 , 124 A.2d 168 (1924), should be explicitly overruled. Since the decision of Mauchline a half-century ago, the developments, both statutory and decisional, in the law of Workmen’s Compensation have been steadily away from the restrictive construction there applied to the Act. Consequently, the authority of Mauchline has been steadily eroded and it is clear to me that it has now been implicitly overruled. The orderly and effective administration of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the prompt and correct determination of claims under the Act would best be advanced by declaring specifically that the doctrine of Mauchline should no longer be followed.
MANDERINO, J., joins in this concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9695864. Public record. Not legal advice.