Case law

Wellinger v. Brackenridge Borough

149 Pa. Super. 394 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 1942

On the other side of the line, we have affirmed, under the same principle, judgments based upon findings by *398 the board of accident, where the defense was suicide, in the following cases: Tuttle v. … Superior Ct. 290 , 169 A. 462 ; Franks v. Point Marion Bridge Co., 128 Pa. Superior Ct. 269 , 193 A. 421 ; Podgur v. Otto Eisenlohr and Bros. Inc. et al., 135 Pa. Superior Ct. 469 , 5 A. 2d 603 ; and Hunter v.

Gavula v. Sims Company.

155 Pa. Super. 206 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 1944

Century Dictionary. 4 Adamchick v. Wyoming Valley Collieries Co., 332 Pa. 401 , 3 A. 2d 377 ; Harring v. Glen Alden Coal Co., 332 Pa. 410 , 3 A. 2d 381 ; Crispin v. … Leedom & Worrall Co., 341 Pa. 325 , 19 A. 2d 400 ; Parks v. Miller Ptg. Mach. Co., 336 Pa. 455 , 9 A. 2d 742 , etc. 5 Apker v. Crown Can Co., 150 Pa. Superior Ct. 302, 304 , 28 A. 2d 551 & 728; Hudek v.

Conner v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

2003 Pa. Super. 102 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 2003

The board would apply the law with respect to calculation of attorneys’ fees as would a court, after being presented with proper proofs. See Croft v. … Weber v. Lynch, 473 Pa. 599 , 375 A.2d 1278 (1977); Cellutron Products Corp. v.

Bakaisa v. Pittsburgh & West Virginia Railroad

149 Pa. Super. 203 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 1942

The order of the court below is reversed and the order of the workmen’s compensation board is reinstated. See Walsh v. Penn Anthracite Mining Co., 147 Pa. Superior Ct. 328, 333-334 , 24 A. 2d 51 ; Coder v. … Superior Ct, 407, 410-412, 16 A. 2d 662 ; Shashura v. Vesta Coal Co., 146 Pa. Superior Ct. 161, 163-165 , 22 A. 2d 441 ; Tomshuck v. Wallin Concrete Corp., 146 Pa. Superior Ct. 390, 393-394 , 23 A. 2d 74 .

Smeal Unemployment Compensation Case

197 Pa. Super. 555 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 1962

Opinion iiy Montgomery, J., This is an appeal from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review which concluded that the appellant was ineligible for benefits because of excessive absenteeism, thereby upholding … Progress Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 406 Pa. 163 , 176 A. 2d 632 ; Ristis Unemployment Compensation Case, 178 Pa. Superior Ct. 400 , 116 A. 2d 271 .

Ault Unemployment Compensation Case

188 Pa. Super. 260 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1958

Souder v. Phila., 305 Pa. 1 , 156 A. 245 (1931) ; Kaplan v. Phila. School District, 388 Pa. 213 , 130 A. 2d 672 (1957) ; Board of Public Education School District of Phila. v. … See also Beilan v. Board of Public Education, supra, 357 U. S. 399 .

Commonwealth v. Black

2015 Pa. Super. 7 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2015

There’s what they call a count board. … See Commonwealth v. Fountain, 811 A.2d 24, 25 (Pa.

Lacey v. Washburn & Williams Co.

105 Pa. Super. 43 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 1932

Any court before whom an appeal is pending from any action of the board may remit the record to the board for more specific findings of fact, if the findings of the board or referee are not, in its opinion, sufficient to … As the court stated in Ford v.

Davis v. Davis

80 Pa. Super. 343 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 1923

v. … by the board, (sections 414, 415, 419, 422, 423, 425).

Soyster Unemployment Compensation Case

197 Pa. Super. 547 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 1962

The findings of fact made by the board are supported by the evidence and are conclusive. Progress Manufacturing Company, Inc., v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 406 Pa. 163 , 176 A. 2d 632 . … The conclusion of the board was in conformity with the facts found. The decision of the board is affirmed.

Commonwealth v. Mills

26 Pa. Super. 549 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 1904

This has been so distinctly announced in Commonwealth v. James, 142 Pa. 32 , and other cases, that it ought to be understood.” Our own ruling in the same case, Com. v. Smith, 13 Pa. … See also Commonwealth v. Rogers, 15 Pa. Superior Ct. 461 . The question was not raised' — at least so far as the record shows — in Commonwealth v. White, 22 Pa.

Commonwealth v. Cohen

169 Pa. Super. 84 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 1951

Commonwealth v. Waters, 148 Pa. Superior Ct. 473 , 25 A. 2d 756 . … Within a strict construction of the Act the defendant, under the evidence in these cases, clearly did emise the punch boards to be set up and established in violation of §605. Commonwealth v. Weiss, 142 Pa.

Soroka v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co.

138 Pa. Super. 296 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 1939

“The case at bar is controlled by the doctrine announced in Palla v. Glen Alden Coal Co., 105 Pa. … See also Dickey v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. R. Co., supra, [ 297 Pa. 172 ] ; James v. Susquehanna Collieries Co., 113 Pa. Superior Ct. 326, 330, 331 .

Tignor v. Allen & Garcia Co.

106 Pa. Super. 49 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 1932

the record had only been remitted for more specific findings of fact and that the appeal was, in consequence, still pending in the common pleas and the record, therefore, had to be sent back to that court, *53 (Driscoll v. … Just as in the case of a court, the work of the board goes on irrespective of changes in its personnel. In Kneedler v.

Zitney v. Appalachian Timber Products, Inc.

2013 Pa. Super. 167 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 2013

On August 8, 2000, Appalachian Timber Products (“ATP”) entered into a written contract to purchase and remove timber from property owned by Carl and Yasmin Brown (“the Browns”) in Redstone Township, Fayette County, Pennsylvania … ATP and the Browns entered into a written contract providing for ATP to purchase and remove the timber from the Browns’ property that was twelve inches in diameter or larger.

Sewickley Township v. McKelvey

61 Pa. Super. 175 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 11, 1915

After the case was so decided an opinion was handed down by the Supreme Court, Bolton *179 v. … us to hold one member of the board liable for the neglect or refusal to perform an act which may have been performed by the board, as a board.

Lackman v. F. W. Woolworth Co.

205 Pa. Super. 129 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 1965

The board, on appeal, affirmed the referee. … The credibility of medical witnesses and the weight of their testimony are matters finally and exclusively for the board. Kish v. Steele Coal Co., 185 Pa. Superior Ct. 257 , 137 A. 2d 855 (1958).

Stanella v. Scranton Coal Co.

122 Pa. Super. 506 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 1936

: “I respectfully request the workmen’s compensation board to determine the amount of compensation due me for partial disability, based upon such earning power as I can establish by testimony before the [board]. … The court below and counsel for the employer cite and rely upon the statement of this court in Zupicick v. P. & R. C. & I. Co., 108 Pa.

Dews v. SHMUKLER

199 Pa. Super. 417 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 1962

The board is the final arbiter of facts in a compensation case, and the referee is only the agent of the board. The board may reject, change or adopt the findings of the referee. Erwin v. L. & H. … Blake v. Wilson, 268 Pa. 469 , 112 A. 126 ; Plankinton v. Schurr, 185 Pa. Superior Ct. 41 , 137 A. 2d 803 ; Butera v. Western Ice and Utilities Company, 140 Pa. Superior Ct. 329 , 14 A. 2d 219 .

Palmitessa Unemployment Compensation Case

197 Pa. Super. 618 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 1962

Its credibility was for the board, but the board, by its own statement, has not passed upon it. *621 Under §510 of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 PS §830, the findings of the board as to the facts, if supported by … The findings must be sufficiently definite and specific to enable this court to pass upon the legal issues involved: Follmer Trucking Company v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 189 Pa.