Case law

Troxell v. Shirk

130 Pa. Super. 40 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 1937

McCauley v. Imperial Woolen Co. et al., 261 Pa. 312 , 104 A. 617 , was cited by the board and by the court below as authority for that proposition. … In McCauley v.

Bun v. Central Pennsylvania Quarry, Stripping & Construction Co.

194 Pa. Super. 630 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 1961

In Benko v. Vesta Coal Co., 149 Pa. … See Spry v. Polt, 186 Pa.

Lettieri v. Blaisden

101 Pa. Super. 423 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 1931

The plaintiff was riding as an invitee on the left running board of an automobile. The car was filled and plaintiff and three young men were standing on the running boards, two on each side of the car. … Havey, 291 Pa. 30 , it was held to be contributory negligence as a matter of law to stand on the running board of a moving automobile. Fol *425 lowing this case, it was held, in Zavodnick v.

Rupchak v. Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co.

161 Pa. Super. 228 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 1947

Apker v. Crown Can Co. et al., 150 Pa. Superior Ct. 302 , 28 A. 2d 728 . … Adamchick v. Wyoming Val. Col. Co., 332 Pa. 401 , 3 A. 2d 377 ; Garver v. B. K. Elliott Co. et al., 155 Pa. Superior Ct. 511 , 38 A. 2d 533 .

Hardy v. Gapen

141 Pa. Super. 101 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 1940

We think the disposition of this case is controlled in principle by Bucher v. American Fruit Growers Co., 107 Pa. … For cases from other jurisdictions in which it has been held that an employee on a dairy farm is engaged in agriculture, see Greischar v. St. Mary’s College, 176 Minn. 100 ; and Keeney v.

Commonwealth v. Messersmith

2004 Pa. Super. 401 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 2004

V. … Commonwealth v. Brown, 836 A.2d 989, 992-93 (Pa.Super.2003) (citation omitted), appeal granted, 856 A.2d 831 (Pa. 2004).

Walsh v. Glen Alden Coal Co.

99 Pa. Super. 58 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 1930

This award was affirmed by the board, and on appeal, by the common pleas. Section 306 has been considered in many cases, among them, Lente v. Lucci, 275 Pa. 217 ; Simon v. Maryland, etc. Company, 276 Pa. 473 ; Sustar v. … Maryland Battery Company, supra, — is imposed on the referee, or on the board on appeal from the referee; it is finding a fact, as much so as a finding of dependency (Hallman v. Starr Printing Company, 70 Pa.

Shilko v. Shilko

131 Pa. Super. 395 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 4, 1938

Superior Ct. 424 ; Picciano v. Picciano, 110 Pa. Superior Ct. 189, 191 , 168 A. 488 ; Good v. Good, 113 Pa. Superior Ct. 592, 594, 173 A. 430 . … See Brown v. Brown, 124 Pa. Superior Ct. 237 , 188 A. 389 ; Sharp v. Sharp, 106 Pa. Superior Ct. 33 , 161 A. 453 ; Kett v. Kett, 117 Pa. Superior Ct. 236 , 177 A. 509 .

Wahs v. Wolf (Et Al.)

157 Pa. Super. 181 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 1945

Superior Ct. 382 , 167 A. 461 , even though an erroneous conclusion of law has mistakenly been labelled a finding of fact by the referee or the board. Carville v. Bornot & Co., 288 Pa. 104, 110 , 135 A. 652 . … In Blair v. Laughead, 108 Pa.

Commonwealth v. Graham

364 Pa. Super. 498 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 1987

Commonwealth v. Brown, 332 Pa.Super. 35 , 480 A.2d 1171, 1176 (1984) citing Commonwealth v. Smith, 490 Pa. 380 , 416 A.2d 986 (1980) and Commonwealth v. Cronin, 464 Pa. 138, 143 , 346 A.2d 59, 62 (1975). … Commonwealth v. Brown, supra. ‘It is unprofessional conduct for the prosecutor to express his personal belief or opinion as to the truth or falsity of any testimony or any evidence of guilt of the defendant.’

Marinho v. Glen Alden Coal Co.

115 Pa. Super. 279 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 1934

Gerst v. Smith Faris Co., 107 Pa. Superior Ct. 30 , 162 A. 490 ; Stahl v. Watson Coal Co., 268 Pa. 452 , 112 A. 14 . Section 25 of Art. … As was said in Roselli v. Franklin Tanning Co., 109 Pa.

Chulick v. Logan Coal Co.

113 Pa. Super. 551 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 1934

On appeal the action of the referee was affirmed by the board and that of the board by the court of common pleas. … Following the case of Gima v. Hudson Coal Co., 106 Pa.

Confer v. Herbert R. Imbt, Inc.

191 Pa. Super. 74 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 11, 1959

In Motley v. Braun Construction C o. 169 Pa. Superior Ct. 141 , 82 A. 2d 581 , the board refused an award. The court of common pleas sustained claimant’s appeal and entered judgment in her favor. … In Walker v. Aluminum Co. of America, 185 Pa. Superior Ct. 355 , 138 A. 2d 197 , the court of common pleas sustained an appeal by the employer from an award made by the board in claimant’s favor.

Lackner v. Pierre, Inc.

120 Pa. Super. 50 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 1935

On an appeal, the court affirmed the board. Our duty is to determine whether the record contains sufficient competent evidence to sustain the finding and conclusion of the board. … Co., 277 Pa. 548 , 122 A. 1 ; Davis v. Davis, 80 Pa. Superior Ct. 343 ; Plour v. P. R. R. Co., 99 Pa. Superior Ct. 170 ; McCoy v. Spriggs, 102 Pa. Superior Ct. 500 , 157 A. 524 ; Kucinic v. United Eng. & Fdy.

Stohan v. Rockhill Coal & Iron Co.

140 Pa. Super. 146 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 1940

L. 186 (77 PS §772) ; Ernst v. Sassaman, 117 Pa. Superior Ct. 353 , 178 A. 317; Zerby v. Reading Co., 125 Pa. … Dist. v. Herzog, 314 Pa. 161 , 171 A. 455 ; Romberger v. Romberger, 290 Pa. 454 , 139 A. 159 ; Twp. Poor Directors v. County Poor Directors, 25 Pa. Superior Ct. 595 ; Simpson’s Estate, 253 Pa. 217 , 98 A. 35 ; Baker v.

McGinley v. Hendershot

65 Pa. Super. 145 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 1916

For the successful prosecution of the appellee’s case in the court below, it must appear that his claim is founded on express statutory authority, or arising from a statute by necessary implication: Wayne County v. … While the personnel of the board may change, the board as such is a continuing body, and its orders and directions continue in effect until changed by the board.

Goodwill Fire Co. of Bethlehem License Case

166 Pa. Super. 42 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 1949

After hearing on the petition by the Board the application for license was refused on August 24,1949. … and the definition of the term “sale or sell” under §2(o) enlarging it to “include any transfer of malt or brewed beverages for a consideration” has removed the last vestige of authority from the contrary holding of Klein v.

Founders Hall Foundation Liquor License Case

205 Pa. Super. 277 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 1965

J., This is an appeal by the Liquor Control Board from an order of the court below reversing the board and directing it to grant the transfer of a liquor license. … The general standard to be applied in determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion was established by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the case of Mielcuszny v.

Pavlik v. Harmar Coal Co.

191 Pa. Super. 283 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 1959

This was sufficient competent medical testimony to support the board’s findings. … Gasior v. Pittsburgh, 188 Pa. Superior Ct. 371, 374 , 146 A. 2d 320 (1958). See also: Pagliaroli v. Shenango Penn Mold Co., 189 Pa. Superior Ct. 496, 501 , 151 A. 2d 637 (1959). The appellant relies strongly on Rich v.

Hanyok v. Pennsylvania Coal & Coke Corp.

155 Pa. Super. 194 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 1944

The referee, the board, and the court below apparently misunderstood the situation in this respect. … The • sentence, which was not only not necessary for the deci *197 sion but was actually contrary to our ruling in Parlovich v. Phila. & R. C. & I. Co., 76 Pa.