Sgattone v. Mulholland & Gotwals, Inc.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Sadler,
These two workmen’s compensation cases, growing out of the same accident, and involving the same question, were argued together, and may be disposed of in one opinion. The referee has found that Sgattone, whose dependents are claimants here, was employed as a dynamiter by DiSandro & Son, sewer contractors. - He was duly licensed to make use of explosives within the city limits, and his services were required by the employers in the carrying on of their business. The firm of Mulholland & Gotwals, Inc., was engaged in the opening of land for' building purposes, and…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Vorbnoff v. Mesta Machine Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Callihan v. MontgomerySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Blake v. WilsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Tarr v. Hecla Coal & Coke Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Ford v. A. E. Dick Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by74 opinions
- Siidekum v. Animal Rescue League of PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
- English v. Lehigh County AuthoritySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Johnston v. Payne-Yost Construction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Pinson Ex Rel. Pinson v. Minidoka Highway DistrictIdaho Supreme Court · 1940
- Colloi v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
69 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.