Case law

Reed Estate

152 Pa. Super. 389 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1943

Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, 129 Pa. 229, 236 , 18 A. 129 . … Ulrich et al. v. Arnold, 120 Pa. 170, 181 , 13 A. 831 ; Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, supra, p. 237; Swieczkowski v. Sypniewski, Ex’r, 294 Pa. 323, 330 , 144 A. 141 ; Dunn v. Dunn, 118 Pa. Superior Ct. 533, 540 , 179 A. 795 .

Commonwealth v. Dorman

272 Pa. Super. 149 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 1979

Sharpe v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, supra. … Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, supra; cf. Strickler v.

Wilbert v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Second Injury Reserve Account

143 Pa. Super. 37 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 1940

Justice Stone, speaking for the Supreme Court of the United States in National Labor Relations Board v. Columbian Enameling and Stamping Co., 306 U. … ‘It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion’, Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor *49 Relations Board, supra [ 305 U.

Magill v. Westinghouse Electric Co.

209 Pa. Super. 342 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 1967

The Workmen’s Compensation Board and the court below affirmed the award. … Smith v. Pull. Stand. Car Mfg. Co., 194 Pa. Superior Ct. 263 , 166 A. 2d 299 (1960).

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Schearer v. Schearer

208 Pa. Super. 196 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 1966

Brown v. Weidner, supra.

Meyer v. Quaker City Sign Co., Inc.

82 Pa. Super. 601 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 1923

It will do it no good to say: “I bought the lumber at the same terms as to credit I could have obtained it from the plaintiff, but I paid eighty-five cents per board more for it and am entitled to that sum on *604 each board … Citing Warren v. Stoddard, supra, and Deere v. Lewis, 51 Ill. 254 . All the assignments are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

Carey v. Frederick Wiedlandt & Co.

100 Pa. Super. 220 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 1930

The board sustained his conclusion and the court of common pleas did the same. … The chain of causation is sufficiently close to uphold the conclusion of the Board. It is as close as in the case of Hornetz v.

McGuirk v. Sun Shipbuilding Co.

80 Pa. Super. 457 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 1923

appellate court has the entire record before it, its revisory powers are limited to a determination of the question whether there is evidence to support the findings and whether the law has been properly applied to them”: Roach v. … The board found that the payments were made as claimed by the plaintiff and the facts in the case support the conclusion. Claimant is unable to read and write.

Bower Hill Civic League Appeal

207 Pa. Super. 122 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 1965

In The Burd Orphan Asylum v. … The order of the lower court placing appellee’s property in an exempt status is reversed and the assessment of same made by the appellant Board is reinstated. 1 In United States v.

Herman v. Follmer Truck. Co. (Et Al.)

129 Pa. Super. 447 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 1937

Palko v. Taylor-McCoy Coal & Coke Co. et al., 289 Pa. 401 , 137 A. 625 ; Feeney v. N. Snellenburg & Co. et al., 103 Pa. Superior Ct. 284, 286 , 157 A. 379 . … Callihan v. Montgomery, 272 Pa. 56, 62 , 115 A. 889, 891 ; Gurski v. Susquehanna Coal Co., 262 Pa. 1 , 104 A. 801”: Paulin v. Williams & Company, Inc., et *453 al., 122 Pa.

Sturdevant Unemployment Compensation Case

158 Pa. Super. 548 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 1945

The board, on its own motion, reviewed the referee’s decision, reversed it, and allowed the claim. The board’s findings of fact are supported by the evidence, and are binding upon us. … McFarland v. Unemployment Compensation Board *560 of Review, 158 Pa. Superior Ct. 418 , 45 A. 2d 423 .

Walker v. Quemahoning Coal Co.

99 Pa. Super. 252 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 1930

The referee and the board disallowed compensation and the court below reversed the board and awarded compensation at the rate of $12 per week for 175 weeks. Defendant has appealed. … . *255 84; Pokis v. Buck Run Coal Co., 286 Pa. 52 ; Shoffler v. L. V. Coal Co., supra), it cannot be given the broad interpretation here suggested.

Commonwealth v. Widmer

446 Pa. Super. 408 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 1995

In Commonwealth v. Brown, 538 Pa. 410, 434-440 , 648 A.2d 1177, 1189-1191 (1994), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made clear that challenges to the weight of the evidence must first be presented to the trial court. … Brown, supra at 438, 648 A.2d at 1191 , quoting Commonwealth v. Nelson, 514 Pa. 262 , 271 n. 3, 523 A.2d 728 , 733 n. 3 (1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 928 , 108 S.Ct. 293 , 98 L.Ed.2d 253 (1987) (citations omitted).

Sonnett v. Stowe Twp.

100 Pa. Super. 397 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 1930

L. 494 shows legislative recognition of a custom (of which there is evidence in this case and also in Sames v. Perkasie, 100 Pa. … See also Sames v. Perkasie, this day decided. The judgment is affirmed.

Pete v. MacDonald Engineering Co.

117 Pa. Super. 605 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 1935

The Workmen’s Compensation Board affirmed the referee. The court below, on appeal, reversed the Board. … We need not decide whether a plain clerical error of calculation, such as this, comes within our rulings in Zupicick v. P. & R. C. & I. Co., supra, and McKissick v. Penn Brook Coal Co., 110 Pa.

Baughman v. Hockensmith Wheel & Mine Car Co.

161 Pa. Super. 601 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1947

The court of common pleas affirmed the board, and claimant has appealed to this Court. … The board’s finding was supported by evidence, substantial, competent, and sufficient; and the order of disallowance necessarily followed. See Schrock v. Stonycreek Coal Co. et al., 152 Pa.

Santi v. American Coal Exchange

91 Pa. Super. 271 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 1927

The rights of-the parties are *274 not to be determined by tbe mere name given to tbe officer by the By-Laws, or the resolution of the Board of Directors, under which he is appointed. … meaning of certain parts of the statute, and whether the evidence depended on for the purpose, accepting it as true, brings plaintiff’s case within the statutory definitions thus, involved is a question of law:” Carville v.

Sarbiewski v. Sarbiewski

127 Pa. Super. 463 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 1937

Rinoldo v. Rinoldo, 125 Pa. Superior Ct. 323 , 189 A. 566 . … See Andrew v. Andrew, 121 Pa. Superior Ct. 152 , 182 A. 706 ; Brown v. Brown, 124 Pa. Superior Ct. 237 , 188 A. 389 ; Kett v. Kett, 117 Pa. Superior Ct. 236 , 177 A. 509 .

Coleman v. Fischer

164 Pa. Super. 261 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 1948

The referee and tbe board found that: “. . . F, J. Fiscber, banded to the Claimant, J ames N. Coleman, tbe automobile' keys of Joseph C. … If, from the testimony adduced, facts have been fairly found by the board they will not be disturbed, notwithstanding that independent consideration by this Court might have resulted in different findings. Moore v.

Tubbs v. O.T. Oil Company

114 Pa. Super. 375 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 1934

Mid Valley Coal Co., 296 Pa. 503 , 146 A. *379 146; Bukovac v. Eastern Coke Co., 109 Pa. Superior Ct. 235 , 167 A. 658 . … to the board for further hearing and determination.”