Case law

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).

Beach Street Corp. v. A.P. Construction Co.

441 Pa. Super. 639 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 2, 1995

Potts Run Coal Co. v. … See Potts Run Coal, supra; Carlisle Borough v. Fladger, 157 Pa.Super. 206, 207-08 , 42 A.2d 187, 188 (1945) (citing McFadden v.

In Re Estate of Liscio

432 Pa. Super. 440 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 1994

v. … Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 , 74 S.Ct. 686 , 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954) (striking down racial discrimination in public education); Roe v.

Roberts, Admrx. v. J. Wanamaker

151 Pa. Super. 297 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 1942

The credibility of this evidence was for the board, not for the court below. As President Judge Keller pointed out in Walsh v. Penn Anthracite Mining Co., 147 Pa. … If defendant had appealed from the court’s original order reversing the board, we would have reversed and entered judgment for defendant on the board’s findings and dismissal. Strickland v. Baugh & Sons Co., 139 Pa.

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 .

Hager v. Bethlehem Mines Corp.

183 Pa. Super. 498 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 1957

In our consideration of the case we may not independently weigh the evidence and substitute new findings for those of the board where the findings of the board are supported by the evidence. Nelson v. … (Emphasis added) Balaban v. Severe, 157 Pa.

Crist v. Rayne Township School District

145 Pa. Super. 438 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 1941

Dist., 333 Pa. 518, 526, 527 , 5 A. 2d 188 ; Langan v. Pittston Sch. Dist., supra, pp. 397-398; Jones v. Holes, 334 Pa. 538, 544 , 6 A. 2d 102 ; Smith v. Phila. … School Dist., 334 Pa. 197, 205-6 , 5 A. 2d 535 ; Streibert v. York Sch. Directors, 339 Pa. 119 , 14 A. 2d 303 . See also, Davis v. Dray, 84 P. 2d 534, 537 (Calif.). The case of Bragg v. Swarthmore Sch.

Cassell Unemployment Compensation Case

167 Pa. Super. 440 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 1950

V, §510, 43 PS §830. … Dept. v. Unemp. Comp. Board, 133 Pa.

Goodman Et Ux. v. Meade

162 Pa. Super. 587 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 1948

Bradycamp v. … Homan v. Mackey, 295 Pa. 82 , 144 *592 A. 897; Kaufman Construction Co. v. Holcomb, supra, 357 Pa. 514 , 55 A. 2d 534 .

Del Rossi v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

210 Pa. Super. 485 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 1967

The board decided that claimant had failed to prove that decedent was in the course of his employment. The court below reversed the board and sent the case back to the board for further consideration. … Ewing v. Alan Wood Steel Co., 138 Pa.

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 .

Browne v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance

119 Pa. Super. 222 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 6, 1935

Browne an endowment policy of insurance on his life. … No election was made by Browne prior to his death.

Thomas v. James J. Skelly, Inc.

204 Pa. Super. 166 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 1964

The action of the board in granting or refusing a petition for a rehearing while an appeal is pending is statutory and lies within the sound discretion of the board. Conti v. Butler Consolidated Coal Co., 169 Pa. … The board, under the act had no power to grant a re4 hearing where the court had taken final action on the appeal. Newancavitch v. Pgh. Term. Coal Corp., 131 Pa. Superior Ct. 391 , 200 A. 137 (1938).

Carberry v. Reitz Furniture Co.

152 Pa. Super. 417 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 1943

reasonable men would thus draw from similar facts:" Nesbit v. … In Rosenberger v. Mar-Bern Coal Co., 151 Pa.

Conley v. Allegheny County

124 Pa. Super. 303 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 1936

Wise v. Cambridge Springs Boro., 262 Pa. 139 , 104 A. 863 , and Root v. Dunlop & Son, 90 Pa. … If, in its judgment, justice requires a review of its own act, it can grant a rehearing, subject to legislative limitations: Manley v. Lycoming Motors Corp. et al., 83 Pa. Superior Ct. 173 ; Greeby v. Phila.

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 .

Pudlosky v. Follmer Trucking Co.

206 Pa. Super. 450 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 1965

The credibility and weight of the testimony is for the Board: Verna v. Stabler, 204 Pa. Superior Ct. 87 , 203 A. 2d 578 . … The Referee is only the agent of the Board, and the lower court does not have power to set aside the Board’s findings and reinstate prior findings by the Referee: Mohler v. Cook, 205 Pa. Superior Ct. 232 , 209 A. 2d 7 .

Yanik v. Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Corp.

150 Pa. Super. 148 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 1942

Johnson v. Purnell et al., 131 Pa. Superior Ct. 230, 235 , 200 A. 151 . See, also, Kitchen v. Miller Bros. Co. et al., 115 Pa. Superior Ct. 141, 145, 146, 147 , 174 A. 919 ; Tinsman v. … See Clark v. Clearfield Opera House Co. et al., supra; Toth v. Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Corp., supra; Cole v. Stewart et al., supra.

Homestead Social & Beneficial Society Appeal

169 Pa. Super. 593 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 1951

See Turner v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 161 Pa. Superior Ct. 16, 19 , 53 A. 2d 849 . … for over fifty years, the Board’s order. of revocation was “too severe a penalty.”

Commonwealth v. Lopez-Melendez

435 Pa. Super. 62 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 1994

In Commonwealth v. Browne, 526 Pa. 83, 88 , 584 A.2d 902, 905 (1990), our Supreme Court stated: Under Rule 1100, the Commonwealth must act with “due diligence” to bring a criminal defendant to trial. … Although Browne, supra, was decided under a prior version of Rule 1100, cases, like Browne, supra, decided under prior Rule 1100(c), remain instructive on the concept of "due diligence.” Commonwealth v.