Case law

Corbeil v. A. & P. STORES

213 Pa. Super. 1 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 1968

Justice Stern in Parks v. Miller P. Mach. … As the court below said: “If the Board had rejected Dr. Leventhal’s testimony, we would sustain the Board, since fact finding is within the province of the Board and not this Court. However, the Board did not reject Dr.

Stites v. REX BAR

202 Pa. Super. 587 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 1964

Also, it is for the referee and the Board to determine the weight of the evidence. Birosak v. Shawnee Inn et al., 198 Pa. Superior Ct. 652, 660 (1962); Lawrence v. Belmont Fuel Co., 193 Pa. … As stated, those issues are left to the Board’s determination which is controlling in an appeal unless there has been a capricious disregard of competent evidence by the Board. Finch v.

Zimmiski v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co.

200 Pa. Super. 524 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 1963

A court does not have the right to decide purely factual matters or to substitute its findings for those of the board; its only function is to decide matters of law, Gill v. Fives, 170 Pa. … The courts have no power to reverse the board on a question of fact even when they feel that the weight of-the evidence is against the finding made by the board. Lorigan v. W. O. Gulbranson, Inc., 184 Pa.

Garrahan v. Glen Alden Coal Co.

135 Pa. Super. 307 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 1939

The board made no finding of fact based on this inference as it was its duty to do if the evidence warranted and it was believed (Vorbnoff v. … “While there are authorities which sustain the principle announced in clause (c) (see Walcofski v. L. V. Coal Co., 278 Pa. 84 [ 122 A. 238 ]; Pokis v. Buck Run Coal Co., 286 Pa. 52 [ 132 A. 795 ]; Shoffler v. L. V.

Sznitko v. Maher & Graff Coal Co.

93 Pa. Super. 463 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 1928

Yough Coal & Supply Co., 266 Pa. 216 ; Creasy v. Phoenix Utilities Co., 276 Pa. 583 ; Karpati v. Cambria Steel Co., 70 Pa. Superior Ct. 202 . … The rule is, as stated in Morris v.

Williams v. Bonair Foundry Co.

215 Pa. Super. 357 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 1969

We are bound by findings of the Board, the ultimate fact finder. Hauptle v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Company, 206 Pa. Superior Ct. 292 , 212 A. 2d 902 (1965). … v.

Southern Outing Club of Pittsburgh Liquor License Case

166 Pa. Super. 555 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 1950

In addition, the Board found that the licensee had been cited on four prior occasions, as the result of which the respective licenses were suspended for periods of sixty to ninety days. See Turner v. … are different from those of the Board the penalties imposed by the Board in the proper exercise of its discretion must stand.

Kattera v. Burrell Construction & Supply Co.

152 Pa. Super. 591 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 1943

The court below had no power to set aside the findings of fact of the board and reinstate the referee’s findings, which the board had reversed. See Hudek v. United Engineering and Foundry Company, 152 Pa. … We find nothing in this record that convicts the board, the ultimate fact finding body, of error in concluding that the claimant, injured on his way home, failed to meet this burden of proof. See Shoffler v.

Kirk v. L. Bauer, Jr., Inc.

209 Pa. Super. 357 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 1967

Sorby v. Three Rivers Motors, 178 Pa. Superior Ct. 187, 192 , 114 A. 2d 347 (1955). Cf. Muenz v. Kelso Beach Improvement Association, 181 Pa. Superior Ct. 105 , 124 A. 2d 153 (1956); Bobbouine v. … Watkins v. Prudential Insurance Company, 315 Pa. 497, 504 , 173 A. 644 (1934). Cf. Waugh v.

Shetina v. Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Corp.

119 Pa. Super. 425 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 1935

To the Bucher case may be added Reichner v. Blakiston’s Son & Co. et al., 115 Pa. … In our opinion, these circumstances bring this case squarely under our decisions in MeKissick v. Penn Brook Coal Co., and Yanasavage v.

Shaheens' Liquor License Case

145 Pa. Super. 5 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 7, 1941

Superior Ct. 280 , 200 A. 213 , and *8 “our appellate review will be limited to questions of jurisdiction and those relating to the regularity of the proceedings”: Grime v. … Dept. of Public Instruction, 324 Pa. 371, 375 , 188 A. 337 : Board of Undertakers v. Frankenfield et al., 329 Pa. 440, 443 , 198 A. 302 .

Corniak v. Cohen

150 Pa. Super. 140 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 1941

Midvalley Coal Co., 296 Pa. 503 , 146 A. 146 ; Williams v. Baptist Church et al., 123 Pa. Superior Ct. 136 , 186 A. 168 ; see, Grigula v. Bethlehem Mines et al., 140 Pa. … See, Massett v. Armerford Coal M. Co., 82 Pa. Superior Ct. 579, 583 ; Zellner v. Haddock Mining Co., 139 Pa. Superior Ct. 16, 19 , 10 A. 2d 918 .

Miller v. Lehigh Valley Rr. Co.

138 Pa. Super. 8 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 1939

We agree with the referee, the board, and the court below that the claimant's decedent was engaged in interstate transportation at the time he was killed and that the federal Employers' Liability Act controls the liability … Super. 137 , 180 A. 183 ); where a watchman was employed to tend a crossing over which both types of transportation passed (Brown v. Lehigh V.R.R. Co., 121 Pa. Super. 380 , 184 A. 290 ; Mahon v. L. W. Val. R.R.

Zilek v. C. C. Coal Co.

186 Pa. Super. 628 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 1958

The board agreed with the referee and the court below affirmed the board. … Silvers v. Philco Corp., supra.

Berry v. Lintner

226 Pa. Super. 562 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 1974

Pieces of a brown rock were located by the state trooper in the area where the decedent was hit. … See Hardy v. Clover Leaf Mills, 426 Pa. 206 , 232 A.2d 755 (1967); Flagiello v. Crilly, 409 Pa. 389 , 187 A.2d 289 (1963).

Linde, S. v. Linde Enterprises, Inc.

118 A.3d 422 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2015

Appellants v. … ); Lofland v.

Commonwealth v. Hagans

242 Pa. Super. 393 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 1976

On the basis of Commonwealth v. … See Commonwealth v. Brown, supra. Because of the violation of Pa.R.Crim.P, 1100, judgment is reversed and appellant is discharged, PRICE, J., concurs in the result.

Commonwealth ex rel. Heisey v. Risser

3 Pa. Super. 196 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 1896

one who has a prior contract with the board, but who has never been admitted to the place. … D. v. Padden, 89 Pa. 395 ; Dyberry School D. v. Mercer, 115 Pa. 559 ; Whitehead v. School D., 145 Pa. 418 .

Raymond v. Scranton School District

186 Pa. Super. 352 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 1958

Wallaesa v. Wallaesa, 174 Pa. Superior Ct. 192 , 100 A. 2d 149 (1953); Board of Christian Education of Presbyterian Church v. Philadelphia School District, 171 Pa. Superior Ct. 610 , 91 A. 2d 372 (1952). … Cartwright v.

Kaplan v. Philadelphia School District

178 Pa. Super. 88 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1955

This is substantiated by the decisions of this court in Hetkowski v. Dixon City School District, 141 Pa. Superior Ct. 526 , 15 A. *94 2d 470 (1940), and Com. ex rel. Wesenberg v. Bethlehem, School District, 148 Pa. … Although our attention has been called to no Pennsylvania case in point, the case of Gentner v. The Board of Education of Los Angeles, 219 Cal. 135 , 25 P. 2d 824 (1933) is quite similar.