Legal Opinion

Shetina v. Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Corp.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 24, 1934No. Appeal 289PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Keller, J.,

This case must be reversed and sent back to the Workmen’s Compensation Board, because of the failure of the referee in making up the record for transmission to the board, on appeal, to include in it the answer filed by the defendant; which led the board to assume that the relevant and material averments in the claimant’s petition to review and reinstate his compensation agreement were not denied, and were therefore admitted (Act of June 26, 1919, P. L. 642, sec. 416, p. 662); whereas the material averments, on which the prayer for relief was based, were denied, and it was…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. McKissick v. Penn Brook Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  2. Bucher v. Kapp Bros.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  3. Busi v. A. & S. Wilson Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  4. Yanasavage v. Lehigh Nav. Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  5. Palino v. Hazle Brook Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Eberst v. Sears Roebuck & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  2. Shetina v. Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  3. Borneman v. H. C. Frick Coke Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  4. Giana v. Byllesby Engineering & Management Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  5. Berkstresser v. State Workmen's Insurance FundSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940

7 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