Legal Opinion

Keim v. BURKHOLDER

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 28, 1956No. Appeal, 216PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Wright, J.,

In this workmen’s compensation case the referee made an award which was affirmed by the Board and the court below. This appeal followed.

Appellant employers are the operators of a drift mine in which both Robert Keim and Roy Yoder worked as coal miners. In addition to his duties in the mine, Yoder was also employed to care for the horse and mules which were used at the mine for pulling coal cars. For performing this service he received extra compensation in the amount of $3.00 a head per month. The livestock was kept in a stable belonging to one of the appellants, which…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Haddock v. Edgewater Steel Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
  2. Stahl v. Watson Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
  3. Palko v. Taylor-Mccoy C. C. Co. (Et Al.)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  4. Campagna v. ZiskindSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  5. Cymbor v. Binder Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Universal Cyclops Steel Corp. v. KrawczynskiCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  2. Maher v. Hallmark Cards, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  3. Susman v. Kaufmann's Department StoreSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  4. Newman v. Congregation of Mercy & TruthSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
  5. Spina v. Galiagan Construction Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1957

8 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