Legal Opinion

Brooks v. Buckley & Banks

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 11, 1927No. Appeals, 220 and 221PublishedCited by 40 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Kephart,

Buckley & Banks had a contract with the City of Philadelphia to furnish men and trucks for the purpose of removing snow and ice from the streets between curbs. Brooks, one of their employees, was injured while at work. His employers were ordered to pay compensation, and they appeal. The question we must decide is whether appellants, Buckley & Banks, or the City of Philadelphia, is responsible for the payment of compensation.

' Appellants’ position is that, because the city is a municipal corporation, it was under a duty to keep its highway free and clear for…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Scibilia v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  2. Simonton v. MortonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  3. Tarr v. Hecla Coal & Coke Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
  4. Allen v. WillardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1868
  5. Kelley v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921

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

3Cited by40 opinions

  1. McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  2. Hader v. Coplay Cement Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  3. Breinig v. Allegheny CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  4. William Rolick v. Collins Pine Company and Collins Pine Company, T/d/b/a Kane Hardwood DivisionCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1991
  5. Venezia v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935

35 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