Case law

Bradley v. Pioneer Oil Co.

109 Pa. Super. 585 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 1933

In Zupicick v. P. & R. C. & I. Co., 108 Pa. … (See also Bucher v. Kapp Bros, et al.; Busi v. A. & S. Wilson Co. et al., opinions filed this day.)

Ludwick's Appeal

117 Pa. Super. 471 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 1934

The board accordingly refused to fix a salary for him. On appeal, the court of common pleas sustained the action of the board. … We will, therefore, consider the whole record with regard to the regularity and propriety of the proceedings and determine the right of the court to make the order complained of: Sterrett v.

Gibson v. Blowers Paint Service

140 Pa. Super. 216 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1940

Its only function is to determine whether there is substantial competent evidence to sustain the board’s findings and, if so, whether those findings justify the action of the board. … See also, to same effect, Haddock v. Edgewater Steel Co., 263 Pa. 120, 123 , 106 A. 196 ; Matis v. Schaeffer, 270 Pa. 141 ,, 143, 113 A. 64 ; Krapf v. Arthur, 95 Pa.

Commonwealth v. Michenfelder

268 Pa. Super. 424 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 1979

Persons sentenced to a maximum term of less than two years are expressly excluded from the jurisdiction of the Board of Parole. Id. at 331.17. In Commonwealth v. … 'But see Commonwealth v. Greenlee, 263 Pa.Super. 477 , 398 A.2d 676 (1979).

Commonwealth v. Sargent

2003 Pa. Super. 150 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 2003

Commonwealth v. Alexander, 722 A.2d 698 (Pa.Super.1998); Commonwealth v. … In any event, we conclude that the relevant analysis enunciated in Alexander and Brown is still applicable.

Ede v. Ruhe Motor Corp.

184 Pa. Super. 603 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 1957

applied to the facts: Kracoski v. … This conclusion was not modified by the Board.

Hearn v. Myers

699 A.2d 1265 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 1997

Commonwealth v. Brown, 447 Pa.Super. 454, 466-67 , 669 A.2d 984, 990 (1995)(era banc Xemphasis in original), alloc. granted in part, 544 Pa. 677 , 678 A.2d 367 (1996). Accord: Commonwealth v. … See generally, Commonwealth v. McGinley, 449 Pa.Super. 130 , 673 A.2d 343 (1996).

Artac v. Union Collieries Co.

140 Pa. Super. 499 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 1940

The board did not consider this factor in determining the question of change in claimant’s earning power. It has been indicated (Bispels v. C. R. Shoemaker, Inc. et al., 133 Pa. … See Carson v. *505 Real Estate-Land T. & T. Co., 109 Pa. Superior Ct. 37 , 165 A. 677 ; Stanella v. Scranton Coal Co., supra, 513.

Harrington v. Mayflower Manufacturing Co.

173 Pa. Super. 130 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 1953

The court below affirmed the Board. … Ratto v. Penna. Coal Co., 102 Pa. Superior Ct. 242 , 156 A. 749 ; Demmel v. Dilworth Co., 136 Pa. Superior Ct. 37 , 7 A. 2d 50 ; Cosenza v. General Baking Co., 147 Pa. Superior Ct. 591 , 24 A. 2d 735 ; Reichert v.

Jones v. Jones

438 Pa. Super. 26 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 1994

In Brown v. Hall, our Supreme Court rejected this assertion in all but two limited situations. 495 Pa. 635, 642-44 , 435 A.2d 859, 863 (1981). … Brown, 495 Pa. at 642-44 , 435 A.2d at 863 ; Millstein v. Millstein, 311 Pa.Super. 495, 498-500 , 457 A.2d 1291, 1293 (1983). Therefore, the amount of support in the separation agreement is a floor, not a ceiling. Id.

Commonwealth ex rel. Kallen v. Kallen

200 Pa. Super. 507 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 1963

McCuff v. McCuff 196 Pa. Superior Ct. 320 , 175 A. 2d 124 ; Common *510 wealth v. Williams, 178 Pa. Superior Ct. 813 , . 116 A. 2d 297 . … Brown v. Brown, 195 Pa. Superior Ct. 324 , 171 A. 2d 833 ; C ommonwealth ex rel. Edelman v. Edelman, 193 Pa. Superior Ct, 570, 165 A. 2d 92 ; Commonwealth ex rel. Trichon v. Trichon, 189 Pa;.

Downs v. Linton's Lunch

134 Pa. Super. 248 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 1938

See Higgins v. Com. C. & C. Co. et al., 106 Pa. Superior Ct. 1, 11 , 161 A. 745 ; Roeschen v. Dietrich et al., 107 Pa. Superior Ct. 298 , 163 A. 63 . … The amendment allowed by the board to the petition of December 6,1933, seems to distinguish this case from the recent one of Calabria v.

Com. v. Landis, W.

277 A.3d 1172 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 26, 2022

Brown and Ms. Johnson told police. … Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 820 A.2d 795, 807 (Pa. Super. -8- J-A05036-22 2003) (citing Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, and Commonwealth v. Brown, 648 A.2d 1177 (Pa. 1994)).

Rosenberry v. Gillan Bros.

130 Pa. Super. 469 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 1937

Both sides appealed to the board. … Judgment affirmed. 1 Callihan v. Montgomery, 272 Pa. 56, 62 , 115 A. 889 ; Houlehan v. Pullman Co., 280 Pa. 402, 406 , 124 A. 640 ; Paulin v. Williams & Co., 122 Pa. Superior Ct. 462 , 186 A. 415 ; Hein v.

McGaw v. Bloomsburg

214 Pa. Super. 342 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 1969

In matters of this nature the findings of the Board prevail on appeal if there is competent and substantial evidence in the record to sustain it. Gaughan v. Commonwealth, 208 Pa. Superior Ct. 406 , 222 A. 2d 446 (1966). … At the outset we must point out that the Board is the fact-finding body and it is not the prerogative of the lower court to usurp this privilege. Puskarich v. Puskarich, 174 Pa.

Parkway Distributing Co. Liquor License Case

204 Pa. Super. 514 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 1964

It is true that we can no longer treat the credit prohibition as requiring “ ‘cash’ means ‘cash on the barrel head’ ” as indicated by Judge Reno in Edelbrew Brewery, Inc. v. Weiss, 170 Pa. … In determining whether such rights were de *520 nied we are governed by the substance of things and not by mere form.’ ” Alpha Club of West Philadelphia v. Pa. Liq. Cont. Bd., 363 Pa. 53, 58 , 68 A. 2d 730 (1949).

Baker v. Mitchell

143 Pa. Super. 50 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 1940

is the fact finding tribunal and that its findings of fact when supported by substantial evidence (See National Labor Relations Board v. … S. 292 ; Wilbert v. Com. of Penna. & Pecora Paint Co., 143 Pa.

Ciabattoni v. Birdsboro Steel Foundry & Machine Co.

179 Pa. Super. 538 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 1955

Upon appeal to the Workmen’s Compensation Board the decision of the referee was affirmed. … The court therefore remitted the proceedings to the Board “for further hearing, findings of fact, and conclusions of law”. These appeals followed. Appellee has moved to quash, citing Wilk v. Budd Co., 174 Pa.

Widdis v. Collingdale Millwork Co.

169 Pa. Super. 612 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 1951

Commonwealth v. Williams, 307 Pa. 134, 144 , 160 A. 602 ; Commonwealth v. Santos, 275 Pa. 515, 521, 522 , 119 A. 596 ; Ryman’s Case, 139 Pa. Superior Ct. 212, 221, 222 , 11 A. 2d 677 . … The Board ignored the opinion of claimant’s medical expert, as it had the right to do in the exercise of its function as the ultimate fact finding tribunal (Walsh v. Penn Anth. Mining Co., 147 Pa.

Commonwealth v. Maxwell

2007 Pa. Super. 270 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 2007

Booth v. … Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 887 A.2d 831 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005) (same). Finally, in Commonwealth v.