Case law

Lieberman v. Sunray Drug Co.

204 Pa. Super. 348 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 1964

We have held many times that the board has broad powers to grant a rehearing Avhen justice requires it. Greeby v. Phila. Asbestos Co., 120 Pa. Superior Ct. 9 , 181 A. 452 (1935) ; Conti v. … Also it is for the referee and the board to determine the weight of the testimony. Birosak v. Shawnee Inn, 198 Pa. Superior Ct. 652 , 184 A. 2d 120 (1962).

Commonwealth v. Wise

171 A.3d 784 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 2017

Commonwealth v. Scott, 73 A.3d 599, 602 (Pa. Super. 2013) (quoting Brown, 911 A.2d at 583 ). … Ratsamy, 594 Pa. 176 , 934 A.2d 1233 (2007); Commonwealth v. Brown, 23 A.3d 544 (Pa. Super. 2011).

Commonwealth ex rel. DiCamillo v. Burke

172 Pa. Super. 10 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 1952

The court below, properly holding that it was without power to review the action of the Board, dismissed the petition and discharged the rule. The case is controlled by Com. ex rel. Biglow v. … of the Pennsylvania Board of Parole.”

Smith v. William Hodges & Co.

151 Pa. Super. 14 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 1942

Superior Ct. 193 , 20 A. 2d 874 ; Bannon v. City of Pittsburgh, 145 Pa. Superior Ct. 201 , 21 A. 2d 500 . It is stated in Anderson v. … Williams v. Susquehanna Collieries Company, 148 Pa. Superior Ct. 540 , 25 A. 2d 751 . See, also, Kramer v. Susquehanna Collieries Co., 148 Pa. Superior Ct. 467 , 25 A. 2d 607 , and Thomas v.

Shiery v. Lauffer Tire Service, Inc.

197 Pa. Super. 209 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 1962

by the Board. … Healey v. Carey, Baxter & Kennedy, 144 Pa. Superior Ct. 500 , 19 A. 2d 852 ; Eldridge v. Blue Ridge Textile Co., 160 Pa. Superior Ct. 578 , 52 A. 2d 339 ; Kracoski v. Bernice White Ash Coal Co., 183 Pa.

Schwinger Appeal

181 Pa. Super. 532 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 1956

Slochower v. Board of Education, City of New York, 350 U. S. 551 , 76 S. Ct. 637 , 100 L. Ed. … See Regan v. New York, 349 U.S. 58 , 75 S. Ct. 585 , 99 L. Ed. 883 . 3 Commonwealth v. House, 6 Pa. Superior Ct. 92 . 4 Ralph v. Brown, 3 Watts & S. 395, 400 . 5 Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155 , 75 S.

Brush v. ST. UNIV. BD. OF TRUSTEES, ETC.

249 Pa. Super. 164 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 1977

Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 , 92 S.Ct. 2294 , 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972); Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 , 86 S.Ct. 719 , 15 L.Ed.2d 637 (1966). … As noted in Isaacs v. Board of Trustees of Temple University, 385 F.Supp. 473, 476 (E.D.Pa. 1974), ". . .

Gunter v. Constitution State Service Co.

432 Pa. Super. 295 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 1994

Jackson v. … Hanavan v.

Lemenestrel v. Warden

2008 Pa. Super. 295 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 2008

See e.g., Lewis v. … .’”); Stein v.

Harmon v. Knoll

129 Pa. Super. 390 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 1937

On this question, the principles laid down in Cavanaugh v. Luckenbach Steamship Co., 125 Pa. Superior Ct. 275 , 189 A. 789 , and in Plum v. Hotel Washington et al., 125 Pa. … It has been held by this court in Plum, Appellant, v.

Harascak v. Department of Highways

217 Pa. Super. 138 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 1970

It is the function of the Workmen’s Compensation Board to decide all questions of fact and the function of the courts to decide the questions of law. Vorbnoff v. … Barrett v. Otis Elevator Co., 431 Pa. 446 , 246 A. 2d 668 (1968); Peron v. Phoenix Park Goal Co., 202 Pa. Superior Ct. 495 , 198 A. 2d 370 (1964).

Seko v. Hub Knitting Co.

142 Pa. Super. 309 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1940

The board is a continuing administrative tribunal, regardless of changes in its personnel. … See Newancavitch v. Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Corporation, 131 Pa. Superior Ct. 391, 394 , 200 A. 137 , and Leeper v. Logan Iron and Steel Co. et al., 131 Pa. Superior Ct. 172, 175 , 198 A. 489 .

Commonwealth v. Darkow

426 Pa. Super. 219 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 11, 1993

In Commonwealth v. Brown, 350 Pa.Super. 453 , 504 A.2d 927 (1986), a panel of this Court concluded that the District Attorney of Allegheny County had not abused his discretion in denying the defendant access to ARD. … Contrast Lutz, supra; Brown, supra.

Commonwealth v. Carter

2003 Pa. Super. 131 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 2, 2003

Commonwealth v. … See Commonwealth v.

Com. v. Mumford, C.

2026 Pa. Super. 31 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2026

Commonwealth v. Brown, 145 A.3d 184, 186 (Pa.Super. 2016), appeal denied, 641 Pa. 56, 165 A.3d 892 (2017). … Commonwealth v.

Commonwealth v. Jones

2007 Pa. Super. 255 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2007

See Commonwealth v. … Commonwealth v. Brown, 582 Pa. 461 , 872 A.2d 1139, 1154 (2005).

Bartman v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.

163 Pa. Super. 31 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 1948

Manno v. Tri-State Engineering Co., 159 Pa. Superior Ct. 267 , 48 A. 2d 122 . The testimony of defendant’s medical witness, though uncontradicted, was not controlling and the board was not obliged to accept it. Walsh v. … The board in effect found that the defendant has not sustained the burden of proof that claimant’s disability from the accident had ended. The controlling principle has been stated many times and recently in Kostello v.

Bates Unemployment Compensation Case

171 Pa. Super. 529 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 1952

The case is ruled by Guede v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 162 Pa. … The findings of the Board, supported as they are by competent and credible evidence, are conclusive on appeal to this Court. Hall v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 160 Pa. Superior Ct. 65 , 49 A. 2d 872 .

William E. Burrell I.B.P.O.E. of W. 737, Liquor License Case

172 Pa. Super. 346 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 1953

The court on this issue sustained the action of the Board. In our view the evidence before the lower court charges the Board with an abuse of discretion. … overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, as shown by the evidence or the record, discretion is abused”: Mielcuszny et ux. v.

Findon v. Nick Chevrolet

204 Pa. Super. 99 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 1964

evidence: Everitt v. … The finding of the Board in this regard should not have been disturbed. See Krasznay v. Milton Ross Metals and New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 204 Pa. Superior Ct. 94 , 203 A. 2d 393 .