Case law

Leaver v. the Midvale Co.

162 Pa. Super. 393 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 1947

The referee refused disability payments; the board reversed and the court below affirmed the board. The employer, The Midvale Company, has appealed. ' ..... … James v. Shapiro, 135 Pa. Superior Ct. 550, 556 , 5 A. 2d 815 ; Sgattone v. Mulholland & Gotwals, Inc., 290 Pa. 341 , 138 A. 855 ; The Pennsylvania Coal Company v. Costello, 33 Pa. 241, 245 .

Junge's Appeal. (No. 2.)

89 Pa. Super. 548 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 1926

Sheldon v. Board of Appeals, 234 N. Y. 484 , 138 N. E. 416 ; Wulfsohn v. Burden, 241 N. Y. 288 , 150 N. E. 120 ); Illinois (Aurora v. Burns, 319 Ill. 84 , 149 N. E. 784 ; Deynzer v. Evanston, 319 Ill. 226 , 149 N. … The owner of adjacent or nearby property is a person aggrieved by the action of the Board of Appeals: Ayer v. Cram, 242 Mass. 30 , 136 N. E. 338 .

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.”

Askounes' Liquor License Case

144 Pa. Super. 293 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 1941

revoking a liquor license, is well expressed in two recent opinions of this court, Com. v. … right of further appeal is not specifically denied, we may review the case in the broadest sense allowed on certiorari and are not limited to questions of jurisdiction and the regu *301 larity of the proceedings: Grime v.

Commonwealth v. Dooley

209 Pa. Super. 519 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 16, 1967

Volden v. … United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 458 .” *526 The Supreme Court cited with approval the language of the Third Circuit Court in U. S. ex rel. Gerchman v.

Longo Liquor License Case

183 Pa. Super. 504 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 1957

L. 15, which v/as adopted at the time of the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. … Board of Finance and Revenue, 368 Pa. 463 , 84 A. 2d 495 . See also Cammie v. I. T. E. Circuit Breaker Co., 151 Pa. Superior Ct. 246 , 30 A. 2d 225 . *509 By the Act of June 24, 1939, P.

Baumann v. Howard J. Ehmke Co.

126 Pa. Super. 108 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 1936

If the findings of fact made by the board in this respect are based on competent and relevant evidence, they are conclusive and this court has no power to revise those findings: Vorbnoff v. … In Haddock v.

Keys Unemployment Compensation Case

183 Pa. Super. 164 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 1957

Keys, from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dismissing his appeal to the board from a referee’s finding of ineligibility. … Gillis v. Public Service Commission, 105 Pa. Superior Ct. 389, 394 , 161 A. 563 .

Commonwealth v. Neff

2004 Pa. Super. 400 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 2004

V. … v.

Commonwealth v. Ford-Bey

404 Pa. Super. 281 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 9, 1991

Since the total maximum term of appellee’s sentence continued for more than two years, exclusive power to parole for such a sentence is vested in the State Board of Probation and Parole. 3 Commonwealth v. … Tillman v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 48 Pa.Commw. 325, 329, 409 A.2d 949, 951 (1980).

Weinberg v. Morgan

186 Pa. Super. 322 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 1958

Gettier v. Friday, 375 Pa. 206, 208 , 99 A. 2d 899 ; Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Borish, 165 Pa. Superior Ct. 308, 310 , 67 A. 2d 823 ." Stein v. Greene, 178 Pa. Superior Ct. 464, 467 , 116 A. 2d 308, 310 . … Brown v. McClure Newspaper Syndicate, 183 Pa. Superior Ct. 316 , 130 A. 2d 721 ; Berger v. Pittsburgh Auto Equipment Company, 387 Pa. 61, 62 , 127 A. 2d 334 ; Fogel Refrigerator Company v.

Price Bar, Inc. Liquor License Case

203 Pa. Super. 481 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 1964

Opinion by Watkins, J., This appeal is by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board from an order of the Court of Quarter Sessions for the County of Philadelphia reversing an order of the Board that revoked the restaurant liquor … Barium Steel Corp. v. Wiley, 379 Pa. 38 , 108 A. 2d 336 (1954); Tucker v.

Webster v. Grove City College

198 Pa. Super. 475 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 1962

Metz v. Quakertown Stove Works, 156 Pa. Superior Ct. 70 , 39 A. 2d 534 (1944). … Bingaman v. Baldwin Locomotive Works, 159 Pa. Superior Ct. 29 , 46 A. 2d 512 (1946).

Secrist Liquor License Case

195 Pa. Super. 73 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 1961

The citation, issued by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board to John H. … To support the allegations of serving liquor and/or malt and brewed beverages to intoxicated persons and of the unsanitary condition of the premises, the board offered the testimony of George V.

Commonwealth ex rel. Ruczynski v. Powers

206 Pa. Super. 415 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 1965

Harry v. Eastridge, 374 Pa. 172, 177 , 97 A. 2d 350 (1953).” Judge Brown, in her long and distinguished career on the bench of the County Court of Philadelphia, has heard thousands of these cases. … Judge Brown concluded: “We are well impressed with the character, good intentions and sincerity of purpose of the foster parents.

Commonwealth v. LeGrande

389 Pa. Super. 457 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 1989

Id.; see also Commonwealth v. … This issue is controlled by Commonwealth v. Fells, 513 Pa. 18 , 518 A.2d 544 (1986) (per curiam).

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 .

Hauptle v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co.

206 Pa. Super. 292 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 1965

The board may reject the testimony of any witness in whole or in part, the credibility to be given the witnesses and the weight to be accorded their testimony being for the board. Erwin v. L. & H. … In view of the wide latitude which the board has in weighing the evidence and passing on the credibility of witnesses, Symons v.

Williams v. Susquehanna Collieries Co.

148 Pa. Super. 540 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 1942

But it would not require the board, as the final fact-finding body, to disregard the positive testimony of Dr. Schaeffer (Jones v. United Iron & Metal Co., 99 Pa. … The board in its opinion appraised Dr.

Washco v. Wyoming Seminary

88 Pa. Super. 470 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 1926

We “are required to consider whether there is evidence to support the findings of the board and the court below; and if there is, whether the law has been properly applied thereto ”: Strohl v. … Where such loss did not exist compensation does not accrue”: Corcoran v. Pennsylvania Coal Co., supra. In Morris v.