Case law

Shashura v. Vesta Coal Co.

146 Pa. Super. 161 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 1941

Clearly, this testimony falls below the standard prescribed in Elonis v. Lytle Coal Co., 134 Pa. Superior Ct. 264 , 3 A. 2d 995 , and Monahan v. Seeds & Durham et al., 336 Pa. 67 , 6 A. 2d 889 . … The present case is similar in many respects to that of Troxell v. Shirk et al., 130 Pa.

Commonwealth v. One 1957 Plymouth Belvedere Sedan

204 Pa. Super. 292 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 1964

Opinion by Ervin, J., This is an appeal by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board from the order of the court below denying the board’s petition for the forfeiture of a 1957 Plymouth Belvedere four-door sedan. *293 The opinion … In the case of Com. v.

Savidge v. Dime T. & S. Co.

108 Pa. Super. 333 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 1932

of the fact that the accident occurred prior to the date of the amendment: Johnson v. … Superior Ct. 94 ; DeJoseph v. Standard Steel Car Company, ibid, 497. Here, as in the case last cited, claimant had eight months after the approval of the amendment within which to file his petition.

Turek v. Damalak

161 Pa. Super. 84 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 1947

Opinion by Hirt, J., The lower court entered judgment on an award of compensation made by the referee and affirmed by the board. … Adamchick v. Wyoming Val. Col. Co., 332 Pa. 401 , 3 A. 2d 377 ; Paydo v. Union Collieries Co., 146 Pa. Superior Ct. 385 , 22 A. 2d 759 . We have collected and discussed some of the authorities in Garver v. B. K.

Com. v. Murchison, D.

2023 Pa. Super. 80 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 10, 2023

See Commonwealth v. Laboy, 230 A.3d 1134, 1137 (Pa. … See Commonwealth v. Payne, 210 A.3d 299, 304 (Pa.

Cardarelli v. Simon

149 Pa. Super. 364 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 6, 1942

Justice Stern, speaking for the Supreme Court said in Mulheirn v. … Brown, 322 Pa. 171, 173 , 185 A. 301 : “Weed testified that the Brown car was traveling at a rate in excess of fifty miles an hour, but, since he saw the car only momentarily and as it approached head on, his estimate of

Bruno v. Cara

116 Pa. Super. 544 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 1934

Cunard Coal Co., 286 Pa. 72, 81 , 132 A. 828 ; Kuhn v. Buhl, 251 Pa. 348 , 96 A. 977 ; Goodyear v. Brown, 155 Pa. 514 , 26 A. 665 ; McCabe v. Sacchetti, 73 Pa. … Nor did the illegality appear on the face of the land warrant in Goodyear v. Brown, supra. It does not affirmatively appear from the reports of the cases that the contracts struck down in Kuhn v.

Sharp, C. v. McQuiller, S.

206 A.3d 1179 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2019

Pers. v. … See Wilk v.

Commonwealth v. Anchor Building & Loan Ass'n

20 Pa. Super. 101 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 1902

The action taken by the board in maturing the several series was, as found by the auditor, after reports by duly appointed committees of the board upon the financial condition of the association, and with the advice of counsel … for the unfortunate results of their management, since they are held to but ordinary skill and diligence and are personally liable only when they are guilty of fraudulent conduct or of acts clearly ultra vires : Swentzel v.

Commonwealth v. Tucker

252 Pa. Super. 594 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 1978

One was described as wearing a “V” neck brown sweater and the other as wearing a blue flannel shirt with red and black plaid stripes. Neither employee saw the men leave the area after they exited from the restaurant. … While the police were standing in the parking lot observing the cars, two white males, one wearing a blue shirt with red and black plaid stripes and the second wearing jeans and a brown “V” neck sweater appeared from the

Commonwealth v. Auchmuty

2002 Pa. Super. 157 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 16, 2002

Brown, stopped along the roadway to inspect Appellant’s rural property after learning that it was for sale. … See Commonwealth v.

Montgomery v. Greene County Clay Products Co.

205 Pa. Super. 515 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 1965

Skoda v. West Penn Power Company, 411 Pa. 323 . … KoEune v. State Bank, 134 Pa. Superior Ct. 108 , and parol evidence is admissible to aid, correct and supplement corporate minutes. Malone v. Melnick, 378 Pa. 483 .

Carlson v. Chevrolet Motor Division, General Motors Corp.

199 Pa. Super. 461 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 1962

The referee found Chevrolet to be the employer, but was reversed by the board which found that Greenfield was the employer. … Mature v. Angelo, 873 Pa. 593 , 97 A. 2d 59 (1953).

Toolan v. Trevose Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

288 Pa. Super. 211 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 1981

Reardon v. Wilbur, 441 Pa. 551 , 272 A.2d 888 (1971). … Meyers v.

Commonwealth v. Donaducy

176 Pa. Super. 27 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 1954

.” *30 It is clear that the indictment in this case meets the standards required in this Commonwealth as set forth, inter alia, in Com. v. Wooden, 94 Pa. Superior Ct. 452 , and Com. v. … Haywood, as such members of and composing the said board of commissioners of public grounds and buildings, as aforesaid, and the said John C.

Jensen v. Braslafsky

73 Pa. Super. 323 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 1920

The authorities relied on by the court below, Brown v. Reed, 79 Pa. 370 , and Leas v. Walls, 101 Pa. 57 , are recognized as controlling such cases in this State. See also Corpus Juris, vol. 8, 737.

Estate of Stephen Clark

99 Pa. Super. 490 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1930

In the case of Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions v. Culp, 151 Pa. 467 , Mr. … Mahoning Township v.

BARAN v. BARAN

166 Pa. Super. 532 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 1950

The corporation and the board, dominated by Michael, by the specious device of employing Mrs. … Ladner v. Siegel, 298 Pa. 487 , 148 A. 699 .

Enos v. Walter

194 Pa. Super. 53 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 1960

Section 413 of the statute (77 P.S. 772) reads in pertinent part as follows: “The board, or referee designated by the board, may, at any .time, modify, reinstate, suspend, .or terminate an original or supplemental agreement … The purpose of this section was to protect claimants from imposition and improvidence: Wahs v. Wolf, 157 Pa. Superior Ct. 181 , 42 A. 2d 166 . Appellants also cite Blair v. Laughead, 108 Pa. Superior Ct. Pa.

Bontempt v. Suburban Construction Co.

107 Pa. Super. 258 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 1932

The board, on appeal, reversed the referee’s findings, granted an award, and ordered the return of the record to the referee for the purpose of determining the period of disability. … Here, as in the case of Zionek v. Glen Alden Coal Co., 105 Pa.