Legal Opinion

Barlock v. Orient Coal & Coke Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 23, 1934No. Appeal 290PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Cunningham, J.,

The question involved upon this appeal is one of law and requires a construction of Section 306 (b) of tbe Workmen’s Compensation Act of June 2, 1915, P. L. 736, as amended by tbe Act of June 26, 1919, P. L. 642, and of Section 306 (c) of that act, as amended by the Act of 1919, and as further amended by the Acts of May 20, 1921, P. L. 966, and March 29, 1923, P. L. 48.

It may be thus stated in general terms: When an injured employe is entitled to compensation under paragraph (c) for the permanent loss of the use of a member and also to compensation under paragraph (b)…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lente v. LuciSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  2. Bausch v. FidlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  3. Ludington v. Russell Coal Mining Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1926

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Kessler v. North Side Packing Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  2. Horton v. West Penn Power Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  3. Tinsman v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  4. Cammie v. I. T. E. Circuit Breaker Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
  5. Ingram v. W. J. Rainey, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937

9 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