Legal Opinion

Froehly v. Harton

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 30, 1927No. Appeal, 106PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Frazer,

Appellant’s argument contains a statement to the effect that “there is only one question to be determined, namely, whether or not the occupation of the claimant was seasonal.” We fail to discover in the record before us that the matter of “seasonal occupation” was directly or indirectly considered either by the referee in reaching a finding in favor of claimant or by the compensation board which, upon appeal by defendant, affirmed that finding. At a hearing de novo, requested by defendant, a statement of facts, agreed upon respectively by counsel, was made a part…

2Cited by15 opinions

  1. Johnstone v. RichardsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  2. Layman v. State Unemployment Compensation CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1941
  3. O'Donnell v. S. Fayette Twp. School DistrictSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  4. American Mutual Insurance v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  5. Stewart v. CommonwealthSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1962

10 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