Smith v. Unemployment Comp. Bd., Etc., 409 A.2d 854 (Pa. 1980). · Go Syfert
Search
Smith v. Unemployment Comp. Bd., Etc., 409 A.2d 854 (Pa. 1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
87 citation events across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Evans v. Commonwealth (pacommwct, 1984-11-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Evans v. Commonwealth (2×)
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 487 Pa. 448 , 409 A.2d 854 (1980) (affirming Huff v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 40 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 11 , 396 A.2d 94 (1979); Katz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 40 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 1 , 396 A.2d 480 (1979); Mooney v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 39 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 404 , 395 A.2d 675 (1978); Collins v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 39 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 389 , 395 A.2d 667 (1978); Gulick v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 37 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 73 , 388 A.2d…
discussed Cited "see" Gould v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (2×)
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See any of our cases involving Section 3 as a ground for disqualification approved in Smith v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 487 Pa. 448 , 409 A.2d 854 (1980).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jamison v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (2×)
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 1992 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Katz v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 40 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 1, 396 A.2d 480 (1979) (this Court rejected a similar argument made *9 under Section 3 of the Act, 43 P.S. § 782), aff'd, 487 Pa. 448 , 409 A.2d 854 (1980).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Goudy v. Commonwealth (2×)
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
Mooney v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 39 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 404 , 395 A.2d 675 (1978), aff’d per curiam, 487 Pa. 448 , 409 A.2d 854 (1980); see also Katz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 40 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 1 , 396 A.2d 480 (1979), aff’d per curiam, 487 Pa. 448 , 409 A.2d 854 (1980).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lloyd SMITH, Appellant,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee. James STROKES, Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee. Harold F. HUFF, Sr., Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee. Curtis COLLINS, Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee. Thomas MOONEY, Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee. Bernard KATZ, Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee. Robert GULICK, Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Jan 18, 1980.
409 A.2d 854
Eagen, C.J., and O'brien, Roberts, Nix, Larsen and Flaherty.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

[*449] Mark I. Weinstein, Jeffry L. Gilbert, Allentown, Harold J. Funt, Bethlehem, Lehigh Valley Legal Services, for appellant in No. 613.

Michael D. Klein, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees in all cases except No. 514.

David A. Searles, Community Legal Services, Philadelphia, for appellant in No. 64.

George R. Price, Jr., Susquehanna Legal Services, Bangor, for appellant in No. 152.

Germaine Ingram, Community Legal Services, Philadelphia, for appellant in No. 159.

Richard P. Perna, Community Legal Services, Philadelphia, for appellants in Nos. 224 and 271.

Peter B. Macky, Sunbury, for appellant in No. 514.

Charles G. Hasson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee in No. 514.

Before EAGEN, C.J., and O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, NIX, LARSEN and FLAHERTY, JJ.

[*450] OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

After a studied consideration of the records, together with the briefs and arguments of counsel, we find nothing sufficiently persuasive to cause us to disturb the orders of the Commonwealth Court in these cases.

The orders 40 Pa.Cmwlth. 1, 396 A.2d 480, 40 Pa.Cmwlth. 11, 396 A.2d 94, 39 Pa.Cmwlth. 404, 395 A.2d 675, 39 Pa. Cmwlth. 408, 395 A.2d 667, 37 Pa.Cmwlth. 73, 388 A.2d 1154, are affirmed.