Case law

Glen Alden Coal Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

168 Pa. Super. 534 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 1951

On the theory that claimant was “laid off” by appellant the Board awarded benefits. … Phillips v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 152 Pa. Superior Ct. 75 , 30 A. 2d 718 .

Max v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp.

80 Pa. Super. 86 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 23, 1922

Opinion by Linn, J., The facts in this case differ slightly from those in Moffitt v. … United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, No. 184, October Term, 1922, decided this day, but the same legal principles govern both.

Moffitt v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp.

80 Pa. Super. 81 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 23, 1922

The first and third points are without merit under Sloan Ship Yards Corporation v. U. S. Shipping Board, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 386, and Sullivan v. Shipping Board, 76 Pa. … Plaintiff performed what the defendant required as a condition of earning the leave specified; he was not obliged to remain at work; his doing so was sufficient consideration to fix defendant’s obligation (Potter v.

Hambridge Steel Erectors, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

211 Pa. Super. 425 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 1967

There can be no quarrel with the argument of able counsel for the appellee that the Board’s findings of fact, if supported by evidence, are conclusive on appeal. Cf. Progress Mfg. Co. v. U. C. … However, the legal conclusion drawn by the Board from its findings is subject to our review: Quinn U. C. Case, 201 Pa. Superior Ct. 152 , 191 A. 2d 714 .

Glen Alden Coal Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

171 Pa. Super. 325 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 1952

The Board further found: “6. … The Board found: “7.

Erie Forge & Steel Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

188 Pa. Super. 405 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 1958

Miller v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 152 Pa. Superior Ct. 315, 321 , 31 A. 2d 740 (1943) ; Accurti Unemployment Compensation Case, 187 Pa. Superior Ct. 391, 396, 397 , 144 A. 2d 673 (1958). … As in the Hughes case the board here interpreted the Leto Unemployment Compensation Case, supra, 176 Pa.

Department of Labor & Industry v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

164 Pa. Super. 421 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 1948

The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, relying upon Sturdevant Unemployment Compensation Case, 158 Pa. … In Barclay White Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 356 Pa. 43, 48 , 50 A. 2d 336 , the Supreme Court approved at least a part of our definition.

Wm. M. McClain, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

170 Pa. Super. 119 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 1951

This is an appeal by the employer from the order of the Board affirming the decision of the Referee. These are the salient facts: Claimant was employed by appellant as an oyster shucker on a piecework basis. … Moreover the findings of the Board are supported by real and substantial competent evidence. The credibility of witnesses, the weight of their testimony and the inferences to be drawn from it are for the Board.

Small Tube Products, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

198 Pa. Super. 308 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 1962

Findings of fact made by the Board, if supported by the evidence, are binding on appeal: Quiggle Unemployment Compensation Case, 172 Pa. Superior Ct. 430 , 94 A. 2d 367 . … Appellant’s principal argument is that the Board did not expressly find that the Union requested a further extension of the existing contract.

Spruce Hill Township School District Board of Directors v. Bryner

148 Pa. Super. 549 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 1941

Atlas Portland Cement Co. v. American Brick & Clay Co. et al., 280 Pa. 449, 452 , 124 A. 650 ; Swick v. Tarentum Borough School District, 141 Pa. Superior Ct. 246 , 14 A. 2d 898 ; Lane’s Appeal, 141 Pa. … See Swick v. School District of the Borough of Tarentum, 344 Pa. 197 , 25 A. 2d 314 .

Superior Life, Health & Accident Insurance v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

148 Pa. Super. 307 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 1941

Palumbo v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 148 Pa. Superior Ct. 289 , 25 A. 2d 80; American Writing Machine Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 148 Pa. Superior Ct. 299 , 25 A. 2d 85 . … Leinbach Co., Inc., v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 146 Pa. Superior Ct. 237 , 22 A. 2d 57 .

County of McKean v. Young

11 Pa. Super. 481 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1899

v. … Com., 2 R. 40 . “ Where a positive law prescribes the manner and nature of the payment to be made to an officer, the directions of the *489 law are and ought to be the only rule: ” Brown v. Com., 2 R. 40; Albright v.

Climax Fire Brick Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

166 Pa. Super. 481 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 1949

The board’s revised findings, fairly summarized, establish the following facts. … McKinley v. California Employment Stabilization Commission, 209 P. 2d 602 . A principal is always responsible for the natural and probable consequences of the authorized acts of his agent.

American Writing MacHine Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

148 Pa. Super. 299 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1941

We shall not repeat what we said in Palumbo v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 148 Pa. … Leinbach Co., Inc., v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 146 Pa.

Follansbee Estate

161 Pa. Super. 31 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 1947

Stanier reaches his conclusion, and his testimony amounts to a conclusion only, by reference to the board’s informal advice that Minnemeyer’s letter be ignored, its instruction that he continue to deal with Nicklas, and Brown … Girsh v. Rolland, 285 Pa. 141 , 131 A. 723 ; Key v. Johnson, supra; Smith v. Zell, 85 Pa. Superior Ct. 114 ; Walker v. Randal, 85 Pa. Superior Ct. 443 .

A. B. Mack Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

172 Pa. Super. 413 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 1953

The Board resolved this issue in favor of the employe and consequently the only question before us is whether the Board’s finding or determination is supported by substantial competent evidence. … Considering the testimony in the light most favorable to the claimant as we are required to do in view of the Board’s findings (Suska Unemployment Compensation Case, 166 Pa.

Buerger v. Allegheny County Board of Property Assessment, Appeals & Review

188 Pa. Super. 561 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 1959

Tax Assessment Case, supra, 380 Pa. 134 , 110 A. 2d 392 (1955); Flamingo Apartments, Inc. v. Board of Revision of Taxes, 383 Pa. 223 , 118 A. 2d 197 (1955). … Hammermill Paper Co. v. Erie, 372 Pa. 85, 95, 97 , 92 A. 2d 422 (1952). The legislature has established a board whose duty it is to determine the ratio of assessed value to actual value.

Glen Alden Coal Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

169 Pa. Super. 356 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 1951

Opinion by Ross, J., In this unemployment compensation case, the base-year employer has appealed from an award of benefits made by the Board of Review. … We are all agreed that the principle relied upon by the Board is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

Nathan Feldman Sons, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

185 Pa. Super. 205 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 1958

Opinion by Gunther, J., This appeal is from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in tvhich the board allowed unemployment benefits under section 402 (e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of … We are also of the opinion that the board’s finding cannot be sustained by the evidence. Decision reversed.

Gangewer v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

137 Pa. Super. 453 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 1939

Appellant appealed to the Board of Review. … Under the conclusion we have reached it is unnecessary to review the evidence before the board.