Case law

Finch v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.

198 Pa. Super. 389 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 1962

Nor do we perceive any merit in appellant’s argument that “the Board violated its duty to make specific find *395 ings of fact”, and that the record should he remanded for such purpose. Cf. Hager v. … Unless such capricious disregard of credible testimony appears, the findings of fact by the Board, based on adequate and competent evidence, will be sustained on appeal: Irvin v.

Blouss v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R.

73 Pa. Super. 95 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 1919

It was a question of fact: Gallagher v. Walton Mfg. Co., 264 Pa. 29 ; or at most a mixed question of fact and law: Flucker v. Steel Co., 263 Pa. 113 . … In Dzikowska v.

Commonwealth v. Trolene

263 Pa. Super. 263 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 1979

From this evidence, extrinsic of Brown’s testimony, one could reasonably infer by a preponderance of the evidence, Commonwealth v. … As to the claim based on the attorney-client privilege between Lam and Brown, appellant has no standing to invoke it. Commonwealth v.

Commonwealth v. Miller

63 Pa. Super. 548 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 1916

On August 13,1915, upon affidavit filed, a bench warrant issued and she was brought before Brown, P. J., of the Municipal Court, August 16, 1915. … The appellant contends that there is nothing on the record to show that at the hearing before Brown, P.

Stufflet v. Fraternal Order of Eagles

164 Pa. Super. 473 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 1949

In Rovere v. Interstate Cemetery Co., 164 Pa. … And, of course, the testimony of a medical witness, even though uncontradicted, is not binding on the board. Bartman v. Jones & Laughlin, 163 Pa. Superior Ct. 31 , 60 A. 2d 565 .

Jordan v. Merchants Meat Co.

138 Pa. Super. 133 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 1939

Tinder such circumstances, it should be transcribed and considered with the other testimony by the finders of fact: Kovach v. Union Drawn Steel Co. et al., 99 Pa. Superior Ct. 302, 308 ; Seitzinger v. … See, also, Calabria, v. State Workmen’s Ins. Fund et al., 333 Pa. 40 , 3 A. 2d 322 ; Conley v. Allegheny Co. et al., 124 Pa. Superior Ct. 303 , 188 A. 385; Petrovan v. Rockhill C. & I. Co., 130 Pa.

Krchmar v. Oakland Beach Co.

155 Pa. Super. 430 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 1944

Certainly, the court was without authority to substitute its finding, insofar as it involved questions of fact, for that of the board (Powell v. Sills Garage et al., 150 Pa. … Haley v. City of Phila., 107 Pa. Superior Ct. 405 , 163 A. 917 . Cf. Cronin v. American Oil Co., 298 Pa. 336 , 148 A. 476 .

Commonwealth v. Call

249 Pa. Super. 511 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 1977

Hendrickson v. State Brd. of Parole, 409 Pa. 204 , 185 A.2d 581 (1962); Commonwealth ex rel Sparks v. Russell, 403 Pa. 320 , 169 A.2d 884 (1961); Commonwealth ex rel. Soudani v. … Hendrickson v. State Board of Parole, supra 409 Pa. at 207-208 , 185 A.2d at 584 (citations omitted). In Commonwealth v.

Commonwealth v. Hanson

2004 Pa. Super. 326 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2004

Commonwealth v. Anderson, 830 A.2d 1013, 1018 (Pa.Super.2003). … Commonwealth v. Brown, 741 A.2d 726, 735 (Pa.Super.1999), appeal denied, 567 Pa. 755 , 790 A.2d 1013 (2001).

Michael, G. v. Stock, J.

162 A.3d 465 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 2017

MICHAEL v. … Despite his promise to do so, the agent never added Brown to the policy.

Greenspan Liquor License Case

213 Pa. Super. 29 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 1968

Com. v. McMenamin, 122 Pa. Superior Ct. 91 , 184 A. 679 (1936). This case is controlled by our recent decision in Elfman, Point Bar, Liquor License Case, 212 Pa. … Only the Board can disturb the license privilege.

Gerlach v. Little Beaver Twp.

119 Pa. Super. 520 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 1935

There was also involved at the trial an offer of the minutes of a meeting on March 30, 1932, reading: “Vacancy—Duncan nominated John V. Gilmore to fill the vacancy caused by cancelling contract with Mr. … Of. the recent case of Snyder v. Washington Twp. Sch. District, 117 Pa. Superior Ct. 448 , 178 A. 312 .

McGee v. Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co.

121 Pa. Super. 85 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 1936

See Roeschen v. Dietrich et al., 107 Pa. Superior Ct. 298 , 163 A. 63 ; Foster v. Mellon Stuart Co. et al., 114 Pa. Superior Ct. 311 , 173 A. 773 . … In the case of Morris v. Bulletin Co., 110 Pa.

McGowan v. Upper Darby Pet Supply

207 Pa. Super. 329 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 1966

The- Board is the final arbiter of the facts: Ferlazzo v. Harbison-Walker Refractories Co., 200 Pa. Superior Ct. 390 , 189 A. 2d 189 . … The decision of the Board should not have been disturbed. Cf. Krasznay v. Milton Ross Metals Co., 204 Pa. Superior Ct. 94 , 203 A. 2d 393 .

Hilton Appeal

199 Pa. Super. 586 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 1962

The final assessment is the subject of the appeal, not the manner it is arrived at either by the assessor or the board. Hammermill Paper Company v. Erie, 372 Pa. 85 , 92 A. 2d 422 . … Commonwealth, v. Mellon National Bank and Trust Company, 360 Pa. 103 , 61 A. 2d 430 .

Barber v. Fleming-Raugh, Inc.

208 Pa. Super. 230 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 1966

In Sosna v. Ford Motor Co., 192 Pa. … The credibility of medical witnesses and the weight of their testimony are matters for the Board. McCann v. Cross Brothers Meat Packers, Inc., 205 Pa. Superior Ct. 255 , 208 A. 2d 887 (1965).

Commonwealth v. Thompson

286 Pa. Super. 31 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 1981

John Thompson and one of the other inmates possessed small packets containing a brown grassy substance. … Commonwealth v. Weakland, 267 Pa.Super. 66 , 405 A.2d 1305 (1979) (panel). Commonwealth v. Brown, 467 Pa. 512 , 359 A.2d 393 (1976). Judgment of sentence affirmed. SPAETH, J., concurred in the result. 1 .

Tokash v. Early Foundry Co.

157 Pa. Super. 467 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 1945

body (Sections 418, 423, 427), Plaugher v. … This Court has held in a long line of decisions that, the Courts may not substitute their findings for those of the board. In Walsh v. Penn Anth. Mining Company, 147 Pa.

Walker v. Aluminum Co. of America

185 Pa. Super. 355 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 1958

This, we believe, was a question of fact for the board. What was or was not a substantial portion for her support was also for the board. In Morris v. … Sandy v. *359 Hazle Brook Coal Co., 157 Pa. Superior Ct. 33 , 41 A. 2d. 432; Binkley v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., 156 Pa. Superior Ct. 381 , 40 A. 2d 132 . In Morris v.

Commonwealth ex rel. Swanson v. Barry

199 Pa. Super. 244 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 1962

Here Judge Brown found compelling reasons for continuing the custody in the father. … Judge Brown also properly notes as an important consideration the fact that the mother’s home is beyond the jurisdiction of the court. See Commonwealth ex rel. Buell v. Buell, 186 Pa.