Case law

Apker v. Crown Can Co.

150 Pa. Super. 302 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 1942

Callihan v. Montgomery, 272 Pa. 56 , 115 A. 889 ; Anderson v. Baxter, 285 Pa. 443 , 132 A. 358 ; Vorbnoff v. … Bakaisa v. Pittsburgh & West Virginia R. R., 149 Pa. Superior Ct. 203 , 27 A. (2d) 769. But in our opinion the Board correctly held there was no evidence of a compensable accident; the case is ruled by Adamchick v.

Dolan v. Com. of Pa

106 Pa. Super. 74 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 1932

In Horn v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 274 Pa. 42 (1922), Mr. … The same may be said of tbe case of Ancello v. Tanning Co., 88 Pa. Superior Ct. 353 , cited by the conrt below.

Commonwealth v. Ziegler Dairy Co.

139 Pa. Super. 224 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 1939

Railroad Co. v. … Bank v. Board of County Commrs., 264 U. S. 450, 455, 456 ; Anniston Mfg. Co. v. Davis, 301 U. S. 337, 343 ; Rohrer v. Milk Control Board, 322 Pa. 257, 280 , 186 A. 336 ; Com. ex rel. Margiotti v. Ortwein, 132 Pa.

Commonwealth v. Eclipse Literary & Social Club

117 Pa. Super. 339 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 1935

This rule was applied in Lightner v. Commonwealth, supra; in U. S. v. Montell, Taney’s Decisions, 47: Fed. Cas. No. 15798; likewise in U. S. v. … As stated in Thommen v.

Jefferson Bank v. J. Roy Morris and Scanforms, Inc.

432 Pa. Super. 546 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 1994

Ramins v. … See, e.g., Franklin Interior, Inc. v. Browns Lane, Inc., 227 Pa.Super. 252 , 319 A.2d 682 (1974). Notice is deemed to occur on the date of actual receipt, not on the date that it was sent. Id.

Allen v. Patterson-Emerson-Comstock, Inc.

180 Pa. Super. 286 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 1956

In Horn v. … In McCarthy v.

BURGOYNE, JR. v. Pinecrest Community Ass'n

2007 Pa. Super. 132 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 9, 2007

Lundy v. … Ass’n v.

B.A.W. v. T.L.W., III

230 A.3d 402 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 2020

Father cites Sirio v. Sirio, 951 A.2d 1188 (Pa. … Brown v. Hendrick, 283 A.2d 722 (Pa. Super. 1971), and Commonwealth v. Diaz, 191 A.3d 850 (Pa. Super. 2018), among other cases. Id.

Teresa Caruso v. Com. of Pa.

99 Pa. Super. 238 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 1930

It is true that facts found by the board which are supported by competent evidence are as binding on the court below as would be the verdict of a jury. (Sgattone v. Mulholland & Gotwals, Inc., 290 Pa. 341 ). … The board’s finding that the deceased was not an employee of the State was a finding of fact: Sgattone v. Mulholland & Gotwals, Inc., supra.

Gordon v. Tomei

144 Pa. Super. 449 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 1940

In Manning v. … In Fineman v.

Platt v. Fisher

59 Pa. Super. 114 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 1915

What they contend for in their critical and ingenious argument is, that the case of Brown v. Kelly, 27 Pittsb. Leg. Journal, 78, being later in time, is the controlling precedent. … Bearing this principle in mind, Coe v. Vodges and Brown v. Kelly may each stand as authority for the principle applicable to its peculiar facts. In the second place, a dozen years after Brown v.

Ellis v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Co.

111 Pa. Super. 252 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 1933

Thereupon the board, referring to the line of cases of which Kent v. General Chemical Co., 285 Pa. 34 , 131 A. 588 ; Yodis v. Phila. and Reading C. & I. Co., 269 Pa. 586 , 113 A. 73 ; Davis v. … See Zionek v. Glen Alden Coal Co., 105 Pa. Superior Ct. 189 , 160 A. 154 , and Jones v. United Iron and Metal Co., supra.

Hawkins' Petition

129 Pa. Super. 453 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 1937

We have recently pointed out in Potts v. Penn Township School District, 127 Pa. Superior Ct. 173 , 193 A. 290 , and Ickes v. Costlow et al., 127 Pa. … In Potts v.

Trude v. Martin

442 Pa. Super. 614 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 9, 1995

Specifically, the jury found Martin 40% responsible, Shellhouse 29% responsible, Brown 20% responsible, Donati’s 49% responsible (the sum of the fault of its employees, Brown and Shellhouse), and Equitable 11% responsible … In Tindal v.

Anetakis v. Salvation Army

191 Pa. Super. 268 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 1959

“When the board reverses or sets aside a finding of fact of a referee, that finding is thereafter of no force and effect whatever.” Hudek v. United Eng. & Fdy. Co., supra. The board is the ultimate fact finding body. … Gibson v. Blower’s Paint Service, 140 Pa. Super. 216 , 14 A. 2d 154 .’ ” Taylor v. Ewing, 166 Pa. Superior Ct. 21 , 70 A. 2d 456 (1950).

Rizzo v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp.

216 Pa. Super. 96 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1969

In Zupicick v. P. & R. C. & I. Co., 108 Pa. … Hamer v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., 144 Pa. Superior Ct. 144 , 18 A. 2d 452 (1941); Lind v. Argo Lamp Co., 198 Pa.

Hosterman v. Best

158 Pa. Super. 617 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1945

Hurtuk v. H. C. Frick Coke Co., 157 Pa. Superior Ct. 317, 321 , 43 A. 2d 559 . … See Fitzgerald v. Atlas Asbestos Co. et al., 158 Pa. Superior Ct. 151, 153 , 44 A. 2d 316 . The board did not accept the theory of the claimant, and the findings of fact were made accordingly.

Leeper v. Logan Iron & Steel Co.

131 Pa. Super. 172 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 1938

In Ancello v. Elk Tanning Co., 88 Pa. … The board dismissed the petition, the common pleas reversed the board, and this court reversed that tribunal and sustained the action of the board. See also McGuire v. Dougherty & Jennings et al., 119 Pa.

McMillan v. Wm. S. Miller Co.

149 Pa. Super. 241 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 1942

A eourt does not have the- right to substitute its findings for those of the board; its only function is to decide matters of law: Shumkas v. P. & R. C. & I. Co., 101 Pa. Superior Ct. 401 ; Telario v. … Superior Ct. 305 , 161 A. 486 ; Paulin v. Williams & Company, Inc. et al., 122 Pa. Superior Ct. 462 , 186 A. 415 , affirmed by the Supreme Court in 327 Pa. 579 , 195 A. 40 ; Tomshuck v.

Axler v. First Newport Realty Investors

279 Pa. Super. 14 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 1980

Tunnelton Mining Co., 444 Pa. 105 , 282 A.2d 384 (1971); Goldman v. McShain, 432 Pa. 61 , 247 A.2d 455 (1968); Port-noy v. Brown, 430 Pa. 401 , 243 A.2d 444 (1968); Brown v. … Brown v. Hahn, supra, 419 Pa. at 51 , 213 A.2d at 347 . See also Keil v. Good, supra.