Case law

Liberty Associates v. Board of Supervisors of Huntington Township

690 A.2d 1276 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 1997

Liberty Associates subsequently appealed to this Court. 2 The legal principles governing standing in a case of this type were articulated by this Court in Malone v. … Board voted on the plan.

Marshall v. BD. OF PROBATION & PAROLE

162 Pa. Commw. 256 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 1994

See Philadelphia Suburban Water Company v. … Gillespie v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 95 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 321, 505 A.2d 403 (1986), appeal denied, 515 Pa. 588 , 527 A.2d 547 (1987); Giddings v.

Chester Community Charter School v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

74 A.3d 1143 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2013

Snow v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 95 Pa.Cmwlth. 259 , 505 A.2d 383, 384 (1986); Haynes v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 65 Pa.Cmwlth. 541 , 442 A.2d 1232, 1233 (1982). … Under the Law, the Board is the ultimate fact finder, not the Referee. Peak v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 509 Pa. 267, 276-77 , 501 A.2d 1383, 1388 (1985).

Grossman v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

36 Pa. Commw. 311 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 1978

Serban v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 29 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 147 , 370 A.2d 755 (1977). Moreover, an employer has the burden of proof with regard to willful misconduct. … Kentucky Fried Chicken of Altoona, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 90 , 309 A.2d 165 (1973). We are convinced that Employer has met this burden.

Commonwealth, Office of Attorney General v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

111 Pa. Commw. 187 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 1987

In unemployment compensation cases, the Board is the ultimate finder of fact. Ford v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 95 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 104 , 105 n. 2, 504 A.2d 427 , 428 n. 2 (1986). … However, in Treon v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 499 Pa. 455 , 453 A.2d 960 (1982), our Supreme Court indicated that the Boards power is not unlimited.

Fabrication Specialists, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

18 Pa. Commw. 252 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 2, 1975

However, our researches have led us to Lancaster Yellow Cab & Baggage, Inc. v. … P.L.R.B. v. Sand’s Restaurant Corporation, 429 Pa. 479 , 240 A.2d 801 (1968) ; P.L.R.B. v. Butz, 411 Pa. 360 , 192 A.2d 707 (1963) ; Canon-McMillan School Board v. Commonwealth, 12 Pa.

MacFarland Landscape Service v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

125 Pa. Commw. 284 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 1989

Kubler v. Yeager, 189 Pa. Superior Ct. 339 , 150 A.2d 383 (1959); Diaz v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 170 Pa. Superior Ct. 608 , 88 A.2d 801 (1952). … See Universal Cyclops v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Krawczynski), 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 176 , 305 A.2d 757 (1973).

Smith v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

111 Pa. Commw. 100 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1987

Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 474 Pa. 351 , 370 A.2d 829 (1977). In the present case the Board relies on a mixture of hearsay and direct evidence to support its case. … Commonwealth Ct. 332 , 467 A.2d 648 (1983); Walker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 27 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 522 , 367 A.2d 366 (1976).

Department of Public Welfare v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

165 Pa. Commw. 683 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 1994

Berisford v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Jessop Steel Co.), 142 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 83, 596 A.2d 1237 (1991). … Przychodzki v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Wyeth Laboratories), 159 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 202, 632 A.2d 1048 (1993).

Philadelphia Electric Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

98 Pa. Commw. 479 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 1986

Stover v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 85 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 632 , 482 A.2d 1364 (1984). … In Workmens Compensation Appeal Board v. Olivetti Corp., 26 Pa.

Johnson v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

94 Pa. Commw. 317 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 1986

In Peak v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Pa. , 501 A.2d 1383 (No. 45 W.D. … Universal Cyclops v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 176 , 305 A.2d 757 (1973).

Trafalgar House & St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

784 A.2d 232 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2001

The Board, relying on this Court’s decision in Glick v. … Later, in Central Highway Oil Co. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Mahmod), 729 A.2d 106 (Pa.

Board of Supervisors of Venango Township v. Radu

103 Pa. Commw. 363 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 1987

That section specifically states that, as used in the Code, “the term ‘board’ shall refer to a zoning hearing board.” … The trial court erred in compelling the Board of Supervisors to issue a deemed decision. See Russell v. Penn Township Planning Commission, 8 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 429 , 302 A.2d 870 (1973).

Fairchance Lumber Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

102 Pa. Commw. 487 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 1986

While Section 309(d) of the Act clearly provides for alternative methods of computation, see Miller v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Burnham Corp.), 72 Pa. … Lehman v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 64 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 381 , 439 A.2d 1362 (1982).

Sheridan v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

72 Pa. Commw. 568 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 1983

The claimants have petitioned for review of the Board’s decision. We have carefully examined the record and the briefs and we affirm the Board’s order. … Heffelfinger v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 60 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 280, 285 , 431 A.2d 380, 383 (1981).

Wissman v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

72 Pa. Commw. 297 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 1983

Boulware v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 47 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 452 , 408 A.2d 564 (1979). … v.

Ballard v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

71 Pa. Commw. 306 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 1983

The employer then appealed and the Board of Review reversed the referee’s decision and denied benefits to the claimant. We reverse the Board of Review’s order. … Tardiness may be willful misconduct (Markley v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 47 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 148, 151 , 407 A.2d 144, 146 (1979)).

Kirkpatrick v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

69 Pa. Commw. 103 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 1982

E.g., Durst Buster Brown v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 56 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 135 , 424 A.2d 580 (1981). In an unemployment compensation case the Board is the ultimate fact-finder. E.g., Gane v. … When the Board receives a record that is seriously incomplete, the Board must conduct further proceedings to cure that defect. See W. C. McQuaide, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 50 Pa.

Schure v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

68 Pa. Commw. 490 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 30, 1982

See Bagley & Huntsberger, Inc. v. Employer Accounts Review Board, Department of Labor and Industry, 34 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 488 , 383 A.2d 1299 (1978). Affirmed. … Kirk v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 57 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 92, 97 , 425 A.2d 1188, 1191-92 (1981).

Long v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

68 Pa. Commw. 462 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 1982

Dobson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 63 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 245 , 437 A.2d 1080 (1981) . The employer has the burden of proving willful misconduct, Walkowsky v. … When the employer prevails below, this Court’s scope of review is limited to determining questions of law and whether the Board’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Kimmel v.