Case law

Keely v. Metropolitan Edison Co.

157 Pa. Super. 63 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 1944

Accordingly the board concluded that the present claim was within the exception applicable to an employee assigned to the performance of a special duty and therefore compensable. Haddock v. … The board accepted claimant’s medical testimony in material respects. We are of the opinion, as was the lower court, that the facts and reasonable inferences from them (Had dock v.

Commonwealth v. Davis

418 Pa. Super. 318 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 1992

And in the immediate area I observed a brown, paperbag, which the male was trying to stuff under the couch. … The trial court reasonably determined that the brown paper bag was searched incident to a lawful arrest, thereby rendering its contents admissible at trial. See Commonwealth v.

Commonwealth v. Lipphardt

2004 Pa. Super. 7 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 2004

Commonwealth v. … Commonwealth v.

Beener v. North American Machine Co.

204 Pa. Super. 506 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 1964

Hanyok v. Pa. Coal & Coke Corp., 155 Pa. Superior Ct. *510 194, 199 , 38 A. 2d 537 (1944). In Ream v. Saxman Coal & C. Co., 191 Pa. … The credibility of medical witnesses and the weight to be attached to their testimony are matters exclusively for the board. The board is not even required to accept as true uncontradicted testimony. Moore v.

Smith v. Pittsburgh Coal Co.

71 Pa. Super. 325 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 1919

The defendant appealed to the Workmen’s Compensation Board, alleging errors of law on the part of the referee, but the board dismissed the appeal. … This question has been ably and interestingly argued, by the learned counsel for the appellant and the appellee, and the English case of Fenton v. Thorley & Co., L.

Allen Unemployment Compensation Case

168 Pa. Super. 295 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 1951

S. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 303 U. S. 239 , 58 S. Ct. 533 ; U. S. v. Murdock, 290 U. S. 389 , 54 S. Ct. 223 . … Co. v. Marsh, 41 Pa. 386 ; Beatty v. State Board of Undertakers, 352 Pa. 565 , 43 A. 2d 127 ; 48 Am. Jur., Social Security, etc., §38; 55 Yale Law Journal, -160, 162.......

Com. v. Leaner, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 2019

Commonwealth v. Brown, 185 A.3d 316, 332 n.13 (Pa. 2018). … See Commonwealth v.

Hirsh Liquor License Case

164 Pa. Super. 284 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 1949

In one of our latest pronouncements we said, speaking through President Judge Rhodes, in Turner v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 161 Pa. … Since the court en banc affirmed the facts as found by the Liquor Control Board, there was no necessity for the court to make specific findings.

Richie v. Philadelphia

37 Pa. Super. 190 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 1908

Moir, 199 Pa. 534 , and Lloyd v. … Black, 201 Pa. 433 , and Houseman v.

Mancine v. Concord-Liberty Savings & Loan Ass'n

299 Pa. Super. 260 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 1982

Bowen, 6 Watts & S. 504 (1843); Springer v. Brown, 9 Pa. 305 (1848); Wilson v. McCullough, 19 Pa. 77 (1852); Evans v. Meylert, 19 Pa. 402 (1852); Gibson v. Winslow, 38 Pa. 49 (1861); Kinter v. … wrongfully sold by appellee at sheriff’s sale; for damages she incurred because she had to vacate her home; for causing her to give up her belongings and furnishings; for loss of income by way of having to pay room and board

Commonwealth v. Hall

402 Pa. Super. 23 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 4, 1991

See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Kaminski, 349 Pa.Super. 78 , 502 A.2d 1281 (1985), appeal denied; Commonwealth v. Brown, 261 Pa.Super. 240 , 396 A.2d 377 (1978); Commonwealth v. Hearn, 34 Pa.D.C.2d 49 (1966). … See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5121(e); Commonwealth v. Brown, 261 Pa.Super. 240 , 396 A.2d 377 (1978).

Baston v. Stoehr & Fister

151 Pa. Super. 618 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1942

On the. basis of all the testimony the board made findings of fact, relating to the circumstances of the incident of January 25, 1939, adverse to the claimant. In Walsh v. Penn. Anth. Mining Co., 147 Pa. … Wyoming Collieries Co., 332 Pa. 401 , 3 A. 2d 377 ; Crispin v. Leedom & Worrall Co., 341 Pa. 325 , 19 A. 2d 400 ; Toohey v. Carnegie Coal Corp., 150 Pa. Superior Ct. 297 , 28 A. 2d 362 .

Pelosi v. Overbrook Tile Co.

138 Pa. Super. 30 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 1939

'In Jones v. Philadelphia & Reading C. & I. … See Byerly v. Pawnee C. Co. et al., supra; Henry v. Pittsburgh Railways Co., 131 Pa. Superior Ct. *34 252, 200 A. 294 .

Gill Unemployment Compensation Case

165 Pa. Super. 605 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 1950

. . was mailed to his last known post office address, and applies for a hearing, such determination of the department, with respect to the particular facts set forth in such notice, shall be final . . .” *608 In Layton v. … Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 156 Pa.

Ross Development Co. v. Advanced Building Development, Inc.

2002 Pa. Super. 219 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2002

See Bashford v. … Similar to the Board of Arbitration of Claims, the Board of Claims was created as an independent administrative board to arbitrate contract claims involving the Commonwealth.

Moss v. Philadelphia

209 Pa. Super. 317 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 1967

A decision of a referee becomes, if no appeal is taken, the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. 42 P.L.E. Workmen’s Compensation §294, page 355; Calabria v. State Wkmn’s. Ins. … In Overmiller v. D. E. Horn & Co., Inc., 191 Pa.

Commonwealth v. Jarecki

415 Pa. Super. 286 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 19, 1992

The suppression court relied on Brown v. Blackburn, 625 F.2d 35 (5th Cir.1980), as support for its conclusion that the photo identification procedure was not suggestive. … See U.S. v.

Salamone v. Pennsylvania Fireworks Display Co.

111 Pa. Super. 220 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 1933

.’ *223 And in Welsch v. … In the light of these cases, the exceptions are sustained, the award of the Board is reversed and judgment is entered in favor of the State Workmen’s Insurance Fund.” We do not interpret the decisions in Delaney v.

Sinton Case

154 Pa. Super. 233 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 1943

The resolution of the board, especially after the amendment which afforded the teacher time until June 1, 1941, to establish a residence within the township, was a reasonable regulation: Jones v. … the board’s resolution.

Commonwealth v. Zang

142 Pa. Super. 566 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 1940

See Philadelphia Company v. City of Pittsburgh, 253 Pa. 147, 152 , 97 A. 1083 . … See Commonwealth v. Rosser et al., 102 Pa. Superior Ct. 78, 86 , 156 A. 751 .