Gima v. Hudson Coal Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
Paul Gima was injured in an explosion in the mine of defendant coal company and filed a claim under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The referee refused to allow compensation, for the reason that the accident resulted from a violation of Eule 29, article XII, of the Anthracite Mine Law, 1891, P. L. 176, inasmuch as claimant returned to the face of the mine in less than twelve hours after he had reason to believe a misfire had occurred in one of the holes in which high explosives were being discharged. The referee’s findings of fact and conclusions of law were…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Field v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Buttfield v. StranahanSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Union Bridge Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Ex Parte ReedSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Commonwealth ex rel. McClain v. LockeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1873
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Commonwealth v. FunkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Dornan v. Philadelphia Housing AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Commonwealth v. EmerickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Holgate Bros. v. BashoreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Protz v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.