Am. Red Cross v. Workers'Comp. Appeal Bd. (romano), 766 A.2d 328 (Pa. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
Am. Red Cross v. Workers'Comp. Appeal Bd. (romano), 766 A.2d 328 (Pa. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2003 · …because of the nature of these contempt standards, great reliance must be placed upon the discretion of the trial judge. ⚠ not in text
38 citation events (38 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Knox, J., Aplt.
Pa. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Baker , 722 A.2d 718 , 722 (Pa. Super. 1998), aff'd , 564 Pa. 192 , 766 A.2d 328 (2001).
cited Cited "see" Keystone Redevelopment Partners, LLC v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Baker, 564 Pa. 192 , 766 A.2d 328 (2001).
cited Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Sloan
Pa. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Baker, 564 Pa. 192 , 766 A.2d 328 , 330 n. 4 (2001).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In the Interest of: E.O., a Minor
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2018 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Commonwealth v. Baker , 564 Pa. 192 , 766 A.2d 328 (2001) (charge of indirect criminal contempt consists of claim that violation of court order or decree occurred outside presence of court) with Knaus v. Knaus , 387 Pa. 370 , 127 A.2d 669 , 671 (1956) (direct contempt occurs either in presence of court or "so near thereto to interfere with its immediate business.").
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Burke v. Erie Insurance Exchange
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also American Red Cross v. W.C.A.B., 745 A.2d 78, 81 (Pa.Commw.2000), aff' d, 564 Pa. 192 , 766 A.2d 328 (2001) (holding that proceeds obtained by a claimant through his own UM insurance policy, the premiums for which were paid exclusively by the claimant, are different from proceeds obtained from a third party, and therefore are not subject to subrogation).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ricks v. Nationwide Insurance
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also American Red Cross v. W.C.A.B., 745 A.2d 78, 81 (Pa.Commw.2000), aff'd, 564 Pa. 192 , 766 Ai2d 328 (2001) (holding that proceeds obtained by a claimant through his own UM insurance policy, the premiums for which were paid exclusively by the claimant, are different from proceeds obtained from a third party, and therefore are not subject to subrogation). ¶ 11 Therefore, in this case, there is no dispute that appellant will not be required to reimburse Davis’s workers’ compensation carrier out of the proceeds that might be paid from Davis’s personal UM policy with Nationwide.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Commonwealth v. Bowden (2×)
Pa. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
Bata II, 249 A.2d at 768 (“Because of the nature of these [contempt] standards, great reliance must be placed upon the discretion of the trial judge.”); see also Commonwealth v. Baker, 564 Pa. 192 , 766 A.2d 328, 331 (2001) (trial court finding of contempt will not be disturbed absent abuse of discretion); Garr v. Peters, 773 A.2d 183, 189 (Pa.Super.2001) (same).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
AMERICAN RED CROSS, Appellant,
v.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (ROMANO), Appellees
19 EAP 2000.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Feb 15, 2001.
766 A.2d 328
Madame, Newman.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Order affirmed.

Madame Justice NEWMAN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.