Legal Opinion

Heinold v. Pittsburgh Brass Mfg. Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 6, 1942No. Appeal, 107PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Cunningham, J.,

Andrew Hein old, claimant’s husband, died suddenly on July 20, 1936, while in the course of his employment as a molder in the foundry room of the defendant brass manufacturing company. Contending that this employee’s death was caused by “heat exhaustion” — an unusual, extraordinary and not to be expected pathological result of exposing himself to the atmospheric conditions then prevailing in his working place — his widow sought compensation for herself and three children, under the age of sixteen, upon the theory that the death was “accidental” within the intendment…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Lane v. Horn & Hardart Baking Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
  2. Parks v. Miller Printing MacHine Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  3. Trovato v. W. J. McCahan Sugar Refining Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  4. Consentino v. Union Paving Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  5. Clancy v. Booth & Flinn Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Rettew v. GraybillSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
  2. Toland v. Murphy Bros.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
  3. Castor v. RUFFINGSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
  4. Grentz v. Danny's RestaurantSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1958

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

Powered by the Exa API