Legal Opinion

Pykosz v. Koehler & Streng

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 27, 1932No. Appeal 170PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Baudbige J.,

The sole question in this appeal is: Did an alien, non-resident widow establish her dependency within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act?

Mike Pykosz and the claimant were married in Pittsburgh, November 15, 1897. After living there for ten years, they returned to Poland. In 1908', the decedent, with his wife’s consent, came back to the United States to earn money for his family’s and his own maintenance, and to pay off his debts. The wife and their five children remained in their native land. On August 14,1929, while in the course of his employment with the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Morris v. Yough Coal & Supply Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
  2. Creasy v. Phœnix Utilities Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  3. Geytko v. Pittsburgh & Eastern Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  4. Savic Ex Rel. Bobic v. Pittsburgh Gas Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Berman v. George J. Blair Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  2. Koeppel v. E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1936
  3. Koeppel v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1937
  4. Harrison v. Cargill Commission Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1934
  5. Union Trust Co. v. Union Collieries Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938

1 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