Case law

Sechrist v. Kurtz Brothers

147 Pa. Super. 214 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 1941

James v. Shapiro et al., 135 Pa. Superior Ct. 550, 556 , 5 A. 2d 815 . The burden of proof was upon the claimant. Logue v. Gallagher et al., 124 Pa. Superior Ct. 328, 332 , 188 A. 395 . In McColligan v. … See Joseph v. United Workers’ Ass’n, 343 Pa. 636 , 23 A. 2d 470 . In Simonton v.

Cavanaugh v. Luckenbach Steamship Co.

125 Pa. Super. 275 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 1936

The workmen’s compensation board reversed the referee and found that the claimant, John J. … In those actions the measure is the loss of earning power (Piper v. Adams Express Co., 270 Pa. 54 , 113 A. 562 ; Yeager v. Anthracite Brewing Co., 259 Pa. 123 , 102 A. 418 ; Leonhardt v.

Biddle v. Biddle

50 Pa. Super. 30 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 1912

Both of these statutory elements must concur: Fay v. Fay, 27 Pa. Superior Ct. 328 . What is cruel and barbarous treatment? … Platt v. Platt, 38 Pa. Superior Ct. 551 , and Hexamer v. Hexamer, 42 Pa. Superior Ct. 226 , are authorities in harmony with the conclusion that a decree should not have been entered in this case.

Dicicco v. Downs Carpet Co., Inc.

137 Pa. Super. 483 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1939

Johnson v. Baldwin Locomotive Works, 98 Pa. Superior Ct. 28 ; Wiles v. Americam Oil Co. et al., 105 Pa. Superior Ct. 282 , 161 A. 467 . … Black v. Herman et al., 297 Pa. 230 , 146 A. 550 . See Ross v. Howieson, 232 N. Y. 604 , 134 N. E. 589 , reversing 198 App. Div. 674 , 191 N. Y. Supp. 276 . In Black v.

Commonwealth v. Davis

264 Pa. Super. 574 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 25, 1979

Commonwealth v. Brown, 464 Pa. 625, 627 , 347 A.2d 716, 717 (1975); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 452 Pa. 130, 134 , 305 A.2d 5, 7 (1973); Commonwealth v. Biebighauser, 450 Pa. 336, 346 , 300 A.2d 70, 75 (1973). … Commonwealth v. Brown, supra. If a juror’s objectivity were destroyed by such prejudice, he or she would then be subject to disqualification for cause.

Ruby v. Hutchison

154 Pa. Super. 456 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 1943

Reddicks v. Welsbach G. & E. Co., 124 Pa. Superior Ct. 285 , 188 A. 417 ; Artac v. Union Collieries Co., 140 Pa. Superior Ct. 499 , 13 A. 2d 909 . … Eberst v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 334 Pa. 505 , 6 A. 2d 577 . The present case has something in common with Fitzpatrick v. Armour Leather Co., 143 Pa. Superior Ct. 231 , 18 A. 2d 92 ; and McKissick v.

Munhall Borough Appeal

168 Pa. Super. 299 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 1951

Perelman v. Yeadon Borough Bd. of Adjustment, 144 Pa. Superior Ct. 5, 10, 11 , 18 A. 2d 438 . … Louis Park v. Casey, 218 Minn. 394 , 16 N. W. 2d 459 .

Seneca v. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co.

142 Pa. Super. 470 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 1940

Similarly in Marchuk v. Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Corporation, 106 Pa. Superior Ct. 249 , 161 A. 771 , and Rednock v. Westmoreland Coal Company, 132 Pa. … L. 1552, supra,, which became effective prior to the final disposition of the claim by the board.

Diehl v. Keystone Alloys Co.

189 Pa. Super. 149 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 1959

Kingsdorf v. Frank Gamburg, Inc., 147 Pa. Superior Ct. 84 , 24 A. 2d 140 ; Harwood v. Bruhn, 313 Pa. 337 , 170 A. 144 . … Curran v. Walter E. Knipe & Sons, Inc. et al., 185 Pa. Superior Ct. 540 , 138 A. 2d 251 ; Litman v. Litman, 185 Pa. Superior Ct. 69 , 137 A. 2d 918 .

Sturzebecker Unemployment Compensation Case

195 Pa. Super. 164 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 1961

Superior Ct. 605 , 70 A. 2d 422 (1950); Layton v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 156 Pa. Superior Ct. 225 , 40 A. 2d 125 (1944). … Ervin and Woodside, JJ., would affirm the board.

Rohner v. Fox Products

164 Pa. Super. 610 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 1949

It was for the board to appraise the medical testimony in this case, and resolve any conflict therein. Mouhat v. Board of Public Education of Pittsburgh, 159 Pa. Superior Ct. 423, 427 , 48 A. 2d 20 . … The board did not exceed its power in exercising that function in respect to the testimony before it. See Kline v. Kiehl, 157 Pa. Superior Ct. 392, 396 , 43 A. 2d 616 ; Lusk v. Monongahela City Water Co., 164 Pa.

Shaftic v. Com. C. & C. Co.

106 Pa. Super. 406 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 1932

See Shaftic v. Commonwealth Coal and Coke Company, 293 Pa. 82 . … We are satisfied, as was the court below, that none of the cases relied upon by the board supports its action and that the amended award is in harmony with the principles stated by Keller, J., in DiLorenzo et al. v.

Caffrey v. Caffrey

28 Pa. Super. 22 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 1905

In Comth. ex rel. v. … Heisey v. Risser et. ah, 3 Pa.

Lomancik v. Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co.

119 Pa. Super. 263 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 1935

Granting such to be the facts, the petition, under our decisions in Zupicick v. P. & R. C. & I. Co., 108 Pa. Superior Ct. 165 , 164 A. 731 , and McKissick v. Penn Brook Coal Co., 110 Pa. … Under Barlock v. Orient C. & C. Co., 114 Pa. Superior Ct. 228 , 173 A. 666 , affirmed by our Supreme Court, 319 Pa. 119 , 178 A. 840 , and Motte v. Carnegie Coal Co. et al., 114 Pa.

Behanna v. Meyers

158 Pa. Super. 208 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 1945

Section 427 provides: “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 … In Mackanitz v. P. & W. V. Ry. Co., 157 Pa.

Commonwealth v. Tilly

33 Pa. Super. 35 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 1907

Opinion by Henderson, J., The first assignment of error raises the same questions considered in Commonwealth v. Hughes, post, p. 90, in which an opinion was this day filed. … The commonwealth relied upon the fact that they were members of the school board; that the board had furnished a statement to the auditors which failed to account for $936.03 of the amount shown by the tax duplicate, and

Swartz v. Fisher & Young, Inc.

211 Pa. Super. 277 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 1967

The Workmen’s Compensation Board affirmed this award, and the court below affirmed the decision of the Board. Claimant has appealed to this court. … Where the Board has found against the claimant, the evidence on appeal must be viewed in the light most favorable to the employer: Desiderio v. Penn Fruit Co., Inc., 207 Pa. Superior Ct. 468 , 218 A. 2d 602 .

Fink v. Miller

19 Pa. Super. 556 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 1902

Yard, 1 Rawle, 163 ; Wilson v. Bigger, 7 W. & S. 127 ; Crowell v. McConkey, 5 Pa. 168 ; Stroble v. Smith, 8 Watts, 280 ; Smith v. Warden, 19 Pa. 424 ; Com. v. Shuman’s Admr., 18 Pa. 346 ; Johnson v. … Fritz, 44 Pa. 449 ; Spragg v. Shriver, 25 Pa. 282 .” But the defendants also claim title to the Alice Brown under a treasurer’s sale made to John Balliett in 1876 for the taxes of 1874 and 1875 assessed in his name.

Lipstok v. Haddock Mining Co.

117 Pa. Super. 300 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1935

Oswald Lever Co., 274 Pa. 139 ; Callihan v. Montgomery, 272 Pa. 56 ; Strohl v. Eastern Pa. Rys. Co., 270 Pa. 132 ; Kuca v. … As stated in Bittner v. Saltlick Township, 109 Pa.

Collins Unemployment Compensation Case

191 Pa. Super. 273 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 1959

The board reversed the referee, vacating his findings of fact and found that he was not available. The board is the ultimate fact finding body. Anetakis v. The Salvation Army, 191 Pa. … The determination of availability is largely a question of fact for the board. Pinto Unemployment Compensation Case, 168 Pa. Superior Ct. 540 , 79 A. 2d 802 (1951).