Case law

Commonwealth v. Daidone

453 Pa. Super. 550 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 1996

Commonwealth v. Starks, 490 Pa. 336, 341 , 416 A.2d 498, 500 (1980) (quoting Commonwealth v. Cherry, 474 Pa. 295, 301 , 378 A.2d 800, 803 (1977)). In Commonwealth v. … See, e.g., Commonwealth v.

Schmeck v. Muhlenberg Township School District

60 Pa. Super. 183 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 1915

Allegheny County v. Grier, 179 Pa. 639 . … See Canavan v. Paye, 34 Pa. Superior Ct. 91 , and cases there cited. In Byers v. Byers, 208 Pa. 23 , Mr.

D. B. Martin Co. v. Williams

30 Pa. Super. 298 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 1906

Brown, the said George B. … Brown had authority to make such a purchase and bind by the contract Hetty A. Williams jointly with herself, under the provisions of their written agreement: Duncan v. Hartman, 143 Pa. 595 . What Sarah W.

Krivosh v. Sharon

205 Pa. Super. 498 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 1965

By a decision of the board in Samuelian v. Philadelphia Cleaners, of July 1945, it was held that the existence of a single day of disability following the occurrence of an accident marked the beginning of disability. … In Sekel v. Iagenemma, 170 Pa.

Hill's Estate

32 Pa. Super. 508 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 1907

See Gilliland v. Bredin, 63 *511 Pa. 393 and cases there cited. It was distinctly ruled in Carter v. … Brown," administrator of the estate of E. A. Brown, deceased.

Commonwealth v. Keys

313 Pa. Super. 410 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 1983

In Bass v. … Brown, 497 Pa. 7 , 438 A.2d 592 ) and the judgments of sentence reinstated.

Petroski v. Piasecki Aircraft Corp.

213 Pa. Super. 142 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 1968

See, e.g., Moore v. MacArthur Pile Corp., 193 Pa. Superior Ct. 512, 165 A. 2d 275 (1960). “Nor is the Board required to accept the testimony of any witness, even though the testimony is uncontradicted.” Lowery v. … In Ede v. Ruhe Motor Corp., 184 Pa.

Zenker v. Zenker

93 Pa. Super. 255 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 1928

In Tarr v. Hecla Coal & Coke Co., 265 Pa. 519 , the claimant’s husband was a regular employe of the H. C. Frick Coke Co. … See Byrne v. Hitner’s Sons Co., 290 Pa. 225, 230 ; Robson v. Martin, 291 Pa. 426, 429 .

Mooney v. Yeagle

107 Pa. Super. 409 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 1932

On appeal the board reversed the referee and awarded compensation. On appeal to the court of common pleas the order of the board was affirmed and judgment entered in favor of the claimants. This appeal followed. … All of the cases relied upon by the board and the court below may be distinguished in that respect from this one. In Watkins v.

Commonwealth v. Sabb

269 Pa. Super. 206 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 24, 1979

Gray, supra; Commonwealth v. Washington, 259 Pa.Super. 407 , 393 A.2d 891 (1978); Commonwealth v. King, 247 Pa,Super. 443, 372 A.2d 908 (1977); Commonwealth v. Brown, 230 Pa.Super. 214 , 326 A.2d 906 (1974). … Brown, 467 Pa. 388 , 357 A.2d 147 (1976), and have taken as true all the evidence and all the reasonable *212 inferences therefrom upon which, if believed, the jury could structure its verdict, Commonwealth v.

Beckman, SEC. of Bkg. v. Owens, Ex.

135 Pa. Super. 404 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 1939

In Lowrie v. … Thompson et al. v. Peck et al., 320 Pa. 27 , 181 A. 597; Brown’s Estate, 131 Pa.

Commonwealth v. Cover

83 Pa. Super. 402 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 1924

for as pointed out by Judge Porter in Com. v. … For, as pointed out in Com. v.

Mucha v. Bayard & Co., Inc.

177 Pa. Super. 138 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 1954

The referee found in favor of the claimant, the Board reversed the referee, and the court below reversed the Board. Claimant, a machinist, was injured on October 14, 1941, when struck in the eye by a piece of metal. … Guy v. Stoecklem Baking Co., 133 Pa. Superior Ct. 38 , 1 A. 2d 839 .

James Rees & Sons Co. v. Western Exposition Society

44 Pa. Super. 381 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 10, 1910

Deysher v. Triebel, 64 Pa. 383 ; Satterlee v. Melick, 76 Pa. 62 ; Bethlehem Borough v. Fire Co., 81 Pa. 445 ; Balliet v. … Brown, 103 Pa. 546 , Mr.

Childs v. Adams

43 Pa. Super. 239 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 1910

In Ahl v. … This conclusion in nowise militates against the principle declared in Cushing v. Perot, 175 Pa. 66 , and State Bank of Pittsburg v.

Reichner v. P. Blakiston's Son & Co.

115 Pa. Super. 415 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 1934

See Kitchen v. Miller Bros. Co., 115 Pa. Superior Ct. 141 , 174 A. 919 . … Again, in Kitchen v. Miller Bros.

Hammill v. Matthew Cummings Co.

149 Pa. Super. 121 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 1942

Claimant appealed to the court of common pleas, and, later, to this court from the judgment affirming the order of the board. The board is the ultimate fact-finding body. … Neither the court below nor this court has authority to disturb it: Hoosca v. Lytle Coal Co., 129 Pa. Superior Ct. 434, 436 , 196 A. 892 ; Walsh v. Penn Anthracite Mining Co., 147 Pa.

Barlette v. Red Star Building & Loan Ass'n

64 Pa. Super. 321 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1916

Opinion by Head, J., The facts in this case, as they have been established by the verdict, are so strikingly similar to those in Louchheim v. … When the board would meet, his check would be drawn for the aggregate of all these sums and turned over to the board.

Hesselman v. Somerset Community Hospital

203 Pa. Super. 313 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 1964

Superior Ct. 291 , 44 A. 2d 776 , and the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the claimant who has the Board’s decision: Everitt v. Baker Refrigerator Co., 197 Pa. Superior Ct. 611 , 180 A. 2d 114 . … The court below has jurisdiction of appeals from the board under Section 427 of the statute (77 P.S. 872).

Eckels v. Klieger

205 Pa. Super. 526 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 1965

In Meek v. Allen, 162 Pa. … Appellant relies on Brown v. Pittsburgh, 409 Pa. 357 , for the proposition that plaintiffs can have but one recovery for their injuries.