Legal Opinion

Powell v. Sonntag

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 16, 1946No. Appeal, 48PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Arnold, J.,

In this workmen’s compensation case the sole question is whether the board abused its discretion in refusing rehearing to the defendant. That discretion is statutorily vested in it, and not in the courts. The defendant took an appeal from the board’s .refusal to the court of common pleas. The board’s discretion is not subject to review except if its discretion be abused: Barton v. Pittsburgh Coal Co., 113 Pa. Superior Ct. 454, 173 A. 678. When the appeal reached the common pleas, therefore, the court below could not substitute its discretion for that of the board.

The…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Nixon v. NixonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  2. Fedak v. DzialdowskiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  3. Barton v. Pittsburgh Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  4. Boyd v. Philmont Country ClubSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  5. Gliwa v. United States Steel Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Riley Stoker Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  2. Yeager v. United Natural Gas Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
  3. Fetzer v. MichrinaCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  4. Gosek v. Garmer and Stiles CompanySupreme Court of Iowa · 1968
  5. Douglas v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1977

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API