Case law

Burke v. Wilkes-Barre Township School District

28 Pa. Super. 16 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 1905

This act of assembly has been construed many times, especially in Dennison School District v. Padden, 89 Pa. 395 , and in Dyberry School District v. Mercer, 115 Pa. 559 . … School Dist. v. McDonald, 98 Pa. 444 ; Comth. ex rel. Heisey v. Risser, 3 Pa. Superior Ct. 196 .

Unora v. Glen Alden Coal Co.

171 Pa. Super. 29 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 1952

Plaugher v. *33 American Viscose Corp., 147 Pa. Superior Ct. 372 , 24 A. 2d 698 . … In general on appeal from the decision of a Referee the allowance of further hearing before the Workmen’s Compensation Board is within the discretion of that Board. Cf. Vonot v.

MacKalica v. MacKalica

716 A.2d 653 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 1998

At the equitable distribution hearing, wife acknowledged that the property was acquired during the marriage (N.T. at 42). [4] Thereafter, the master cited Brown v. … In Litmans v.

McCandless v. Summit Township School District

55 Pa. Super. 277 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 1913

Padden, 89 Pa. 395 ; Dyberry School District v. Mercer, 115 Pa. 559 ; Whitehead v. School District, 145 Pa. 418 ; McCrea v. School District, 145 Pa. 550 ; Strathern v. Gilmore, 184 Pa. 265 ; Com. v. Risser, 3 Pa. … Morgan, 70 Pa. 229 ; Genesee Twp. v. McDonald, 98 Pa. 444 ; Burke v. School District, 28 Pa. Superior Ct. 16 .

Commonwealth v. Pascoe

39 Pa. Super. 163 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 1909

The case, we think, resembles that of Clark v. … Brown and evidently intended to bring him into disrepute in the community.

Bierman Liquor License Case

188 Pa. Super. 200 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 1958

The history of the legislation in question, while not controlling, is a factor which may be considered' as indicative of legislative intent: Loeb v. Benham, 153 Pa. Superior Ct. 601 , 34 A. 2d 835 ; Keating v. … We are convinced from our review of this record that the Board was not chargeable with an abuse of discretion, see Mielcuszny v.

Roland v. Frantz

156 Pa. Super. 640 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1944

This is not a case where the record was remitted to the board for more specific findings of fact under section 427 of the Act of June 2, 1915, P. L. 736, as amended and reenacted, 77 PS §877 (Soroka et ux. v. … Walsh v. Penn Anthracite Mining Co., supra, page 333; Roberts v. John Wanamaker, Philadelphia et al., 151 Pa. Superior Ct. 297, 302 , 30 A. 2d 189 .

Dixon v. Shapiro

203 Pa. Super. 535 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 1964

It is well settled that the board is the ultimate fact finding body and that it may reject, change or adopt the findings of the referee. Erwin v. L. & H. Construction Co., 192 Pa. … Shull v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, 195 Pa. Superior Ct. 342 , 171 A. 2d 605 (1961). As we said in Shull v.

In the Interest of C.S.

2013 Pa. Super. 45 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 2013

Brown, supra at 740 citing Commonwealth v. Darcy, 362 Pa. 259, 278 , 66 A.2d 663, 673 (1949); Commonwealth v. Dantine, 261 Pa. 496, 498 , 104 A. 672, 673 (1918); Commonwealth v. … The Brown Court opined that these additions reinstated the common law standard and “eliminated the vexing problem of determining the amount of force required to commit a robbery.” Brown, supra at 741 .

Newancavitch v. Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Corp.

131 Pa. Super. 391 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 1938

We held in Diana v. Byllesby Engineering & Management Co ., 122 Pa. Superior Ct. 156 , 185 A. 866 , that an appeal does not lie from an interlocutory order of the Board granting a rehearing. … Superior Ct. 560, 563, 564 , 165 A. 506 ; Dolan v. Com., 106 Pa. Superior Ct. 74, 77 , 161 A. 763 ; Greeby v. Phila. Asbestos Co., 120 Pa. Superior Ct. 9, 11, 12 , 181 A. 452 ; Giana v.

Tiegel v. Love

61 Pa. Super. 149 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 11, 1915

Brown in 1892 conveyed to A. J. … Brown’s deed was never registered.

Hudek v. United Engineering & Foundry Co.

152 Pa. Super. 493 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 6, 1943

We have repeatedly said that the referee is only the agent or representative of the board: Morgan v. Sanderson, 146 Pa. Superior Ct. 37, 39 , 21 A. 2d 475 ; Baumeister v. Baugh & Sons Co., 142 Pa. … The board is not bound to believe testimony even if it is not contradicted: Bakaisa v. P. & W. Va. R. R., 149 Pa.

Quemahoning Coal Co. v. Township of Jenner

83 Pa. Super. 577 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 1924

L. 37, any owner of taxable property may appeal from the decision of the board of revision to the common pleas. It was pointed out by Mr. Justice Mestrezat, in Frick Coke Co. v. Mt. … Our Supreme Court so held in Shenango Furnace Co. v. Fairfield Township, 229 Fa. 357.

Commonwealth v. Morgan

265 Pa. Super. 225 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 1979

See Commonwealth v. Madison, supra; Commonwealth v. Brown, 226 Pa.Super. 172 , 313 A.2d 290 (1973) (SPAETH, J., dissenting). … Wells v. Pittsburgh Board of Education, supra; Schlesinger Appeal, 404 Pa. 584 , 172 A.2d 835 (1961).

Jago, G. v. Jago, T.

2019 Pa. Super. 246 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2019

Brown v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 647 F.3d 221 (5th Cir. 2011). … See Brown v.

T.A. v. Allen

868 A.2d 594 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 2005

See Cowden v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 389 Pa. 459 , 134 A.2d 223 (1957). This cause of action for “bad faith” on the part of the insurance company is assignable by the insured to third parties. Brown v. … . ¶ 8 Conversely, we held in Brown v.

Krasznay v. Milton Ross Metals Co.

204 Pa. Super. 94 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 1964

The Referee is only the agent of the Board, and the Board may make such findings as it deems warranted by the evidence: Dews v. Shmukler, 199 Pa. Superior Ct. 417 , 185 A. 2d 607 . … And see Curran v. Knipe & Sons, 185 Pa. Superior Ct. 540 , 138 A. 2d 251 . *99 The order of the court below is reversed, and the award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board is reinstated. 1 Unora v.

Porto v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co.

124 Pa. Super. 431 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 1936

We are satisfied, moreover, that the order was within the discretionary power of the board.” In Barton v. Pittsburgh Goal Co., 113 Pa. … Vitkovic v. Pennsylvania Clay Co., 278 Pa. 474 [ 123 A. 469 ]; Garvin v. Diamond Coal and *437 Coke Co., 278 Pa. 469 [ 123 A. 468 ]; Kopecky v. Coalmont Coal Co., 278 Pa. 478 [ 123 A. 471 ].” In Giana v.

Dulsky v. Susquehanna Collieries Co.

116 Pa. Super. 520 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1934

But nothing short of this will bastardize one born in wedlock: rex v. Luffe, 8 East 193; Foxcroft’s case, 1 Roll’s Ab. 359; Stigall v. Stigall, 2 Beach 256’; Dennison v. Page, supra. … Moska v. Moska, 107 Pa. Superior Ct. 72, 76 , 162 A. 343 .

Commonwealth v. Lardo

240 Pa. Super. 107 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1976

board containing current numbers bets. … Eq. 222 , 94 A. 214 (1915); Youngker v. State of Florida, Fla. App. Ct., 215 S. 2d 318 (1968); Womack v. Allstate Insurance Company, Tex. Civ. App., 286 S.W. 2d 308 (1956).