Case law

Thurston v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

140 Pa. Super. 254 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 9, 1940

See Kassarich v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 139 Pa. Superior Ct. 599 , 12 A. 2d 823 ; Gangewer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 137 Pa. … The testimony of the appellant on the hearing before the board fully supports its order or decision. Affirmed.

White v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

200 Pa. Super. 357 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 1963

The ultimate fact finder is the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Referees are merely agents of the Board. Franke v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 166 Pa. Superior Ct. 251 , 70 A. 2d 461 (1950). … The findings of the Board as to facts, if supported by the evidence, are conclusive. Progress Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 406 Pa. 163 , 176 A. 2d 632 (1962).

Root v. Erie Zoning Board of Appeals

180 Pa. Super. 38 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 1955

V, of the City of Erie, the zoning ordinance, will show that §904, in appropriate language, provided for the granting of a variance by the board of appeals and then further provided for special exceptions, as follows: “In … Co. of Pa. v. Driscoll et al., 343 Pa. 109, 113, 114 , 21 A. 2d 912 . In a special exception case it is not necessary for the board to find the two above mentioned things to exist before it is permitted to act. E. C.

Palumbo v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

148 Pa. Super. 289 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 1941

Leinbach Co., Inc., v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 146 Pa. Superior Ct. 237 , 22 A. 2d 57 . … S. 2d 15; Unemployment Compensation Commission v. Mathews, 56 Wyo. 479 , 111 P. 2d 111 ; In re Brown, 260 App; Div. 972, 23 N. Y. S. 2d 330; In re Ten Eyck Co., Inc., (District Court, N. D. New York), 41 F. Supp. 375 .

Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Ferretti

2007 Pa. Super. 320 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2007

(“Attorney Ferretti”), and her law practice, Brown, Brown, Solt & Ferretti (collectively, “Fer-retti”) in this legal malpractice case. … Co. v.

Morrison v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

141 Pa. Super. 256 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 1940

Per Curiam, On the merits, this appeal is governed in principle by our very recent decision in Thurston v. Unemploy *258 ment Compensation Board of Review, 140 Pa. Superior Ct. 254 , 13 A. 2d 890 . … Fortney v. Wozney, 326 Pa. 494, 497 , 192 A. 648 ; Coolbaugh v. Herman, 221 Pa. 496 , 70 A. 830 ; Swick v. School Dist. of Tarentum, 141 Pa. Superior Ct. 246 , 14 A. 2d 898 .

Ryan v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

143 Pa. Super. 8 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 1940

L. 658. 2 Kassarich v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 139 Pa. Superior Ct. 599 , 12 A. 2d 823 ; Speer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 140 Pa. Superior Ct. 207 , 14 A. 2d 462 ; Ehrman v. … Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 142 Pa. Superior Ct. 289 , 16 A. 2d 428 , 3 See Thurston v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Re view, 140 Pa. Superior Ct. 254 , 13 A. 2d 890 .

Thomas v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

144 Pa. Super. 369 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 1941

, and not the action of two individual members of the board, taken separately and apart from a meeting of the board. … (sec. 203); and it should be taken in board meeting.

Mandel v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

141 Pa. Super. 580 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 8, 1940

Per Curiam, This appeal is governed by our recent decision in Labor and Industry Department v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Appeal of Bush), 133 Pa. *581 Superior Ct. 518, 3 A. 2d 211 . … The decision of the board is affirmed.

State Board of Osteopathic Examiners v. Berberian

200 Pa. Super. 533 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 1963

In Pennsylvania State Board of Medical Education and Licensure v. … See Pennsylvania State Board of Medical Education and Licensure v. Ferry, 172 Pa. Superior Ct. 372 , 94 A. 2d 121 .

Jenkins v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

162 Pa. Super. 49 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 24, 1947

The board carefully considered the power of the department to give retroactive effect to the. amended regulation and, relying upon Miller v. U. S., 294 U. S. 435 , 55 S. … The decision of the board dated September 24, 1946 is reversed, and the board is directed to allow appellant’s claim for partial benefits filed for the week ending February 19, 1946.

Seley v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

185 Pa. Super. 413 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 1958

Heinz Co., a Corp., v. Marie C. … Decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is reversed. Rhodes, P. J., and Gunther and Wright, JJ., would affirm on the findings of fact made by the Board.

Hurchick v. Falls Township Board of Supervisors

203 Pa. Super. 1 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 1964

Opinion Per Curiam, The order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County reversing the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Board and remanding the record to the Workmen’s Compensation Board for further proceedings is affirmed … See: Fehr v. Y. M. G. A., 201 Pa. Superior Ct. 107 , 192 A. 2d 143 (1963).

Berdan v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

153 Pa. Super. 49 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 3, 1943

L. (1937) 2897) the board of review had no alternative and the claim was denied.

Pawell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

146 Pa. Super. 147 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 1941

The Board of Review on appeal affirmed the order ,of dismissal, but on broader ground. … United States v. Wallis, 268 F. 413 ; Skeffington v. Katzeff, 277 F. 129 ; Antolish v. Paul, 283 F. 957 . Membership in that party by an alien is ground for deportation. Ungar v. Seaman, 4 F. 2d 80 ; United States v.

Ford Motor Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board

168 Pa. Super. 446 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 1951

Justice Heher (upon which we have largely drawn herein), the New Jersey Supreme Court construed the identical statutory provision in Ford Motor Company v. New Jersey Department of Labor and Industry, 5 N. … The present cases are not ruled by Prentice v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review et al., 161 Pa.

Tishock v. Tohickon Valley Joint School Board

181 Pa. Super. 278 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 1956

It imposed no obligation upon the School Board; it could call or not call her in its discretion. … Thus we think it apparent that the action of the Board in terminating the contract did not constitute a dismissal of the appellant.

Union Real Estate Co. of Pittsburgh v. Brown

233 Pa. Super. 762 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 1975

Patterson v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board

125 Pa. Super. 192 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 1936

General Powers of Board.—Under this act, the board shall have the power and its duty shall be:...... … If two statutes can be made to stand together, effect should be given both as far as possible: Brown v. Co. Comrs., 21 Pa. 37 ; Ulrich’s Case, 267 Pa. 233, 236 ; Garr v. Fuls, 286 Pa. 137, 148 .”

Palmer v. Central Board of Education

40 Pa. Super. 203 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 1909

Justice Stewart, in Palmer v. Central Board of Education, 220 Pa. 568 , where the decree was affirmed. … The defendant named in the bill was the Central Board of Education of the city of Pittsburg, a corporation. Against that board the injunctive decree issued.