Legal Opinion

Baughman v. Hockensmith Wheel & Mine Car Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 24, 1945No. Appeal, 9PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Dithrioh, J.,

The parties in this workmen’s compensation case executed an open agreement for compensation. The defendant obtained from the claimant a final receipt which purported to terminate the agreement. On petition to set aside the final receipt, the referee concluded that it should not be disturbed and dismissed the petition. The board upheld the action of the referee but based its decision on different grounds; From the decree of the court of common pleas affirming the order of the board, claimant brings this appeal.

Frank Baughman, the claimant, was employed by the Hockensmith…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Walsh v. Penn Anthracite Mining Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  2. Kennedy v. Holmes Const. Co. (Et Al.)Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  3. Dorsch v. Fisher Scientific Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  4. Zbirowski v. John T. Lewis & Bros.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  5. Strode v. Donahoe's Fifth Avenue StoreSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Valente v. Bourne MillsSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1950
  2. Peron v. Phoenix Park Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
  3. Zbieg v. Rochester & Pittsburgh Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
  4. McIntosh v. Sylvania Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
  5. Baughman v. Hockensmith Wheel & Mine Car Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1947

1 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