branch analysis in Pennsylvania

2002Under this branch of the analysis, a reviewing court will disallow application of an apportionment scheme if the taxpayer shows that the taxable value attributed to the state ‘is in fact out of all appropriate proportion to the business transacted ... in that state, or has led to a grossly distorted result.’ Container Corp., 463 U.S. at 170 , 103 S.Ct. at 2942 (quoting Moorman, 437 U.S. at 274 , 98 S.Ct. at 2345 , in turn quoting Hans Rees’, 283 U.S. at 135 , 51 S.Ct. at 389 , and Norfolk & W.

2002Under this branch of the analysis, a reviewing court will disallow application of an apportionment scheme if the taxpayer shows that the taxable value attributed to the state ‘is in fact out of all appropriate proportion to the business transacted ... in that state, or has led to a grossly distorted result.’ Container Corp., 463 U.S. at 170 , 103 S.Ct. at 2942 (quoting Moorman, 437 U.S. at 274 , 98 S.Ct. at 2345 , in turn quoting Hans Rees’, 283 U.S. at 135 , 51 S.Ct. at 389 , and Norfolk & W.

2002Ry., 390 U.S. at 326 , 88 S.Ct. at 1001 ); see also Exxon, 447 U.S. at 223, 100 S.Ct. at 2118 .

2002Ry., 390 U.S. at 326 , 88 S.Ct. at 1001 ); see also Exxon, 447 U.S. at 223, 100 S.Ct. at 2118 .

2002Under this branch of the analysis, a reviewing court will disallow application of an apportionment scheme if the taxpayer shows that the taxable value attributed to the state ‘is in fact out of all appropriate proportion to the business transacted ... in that state, or has led to a grossly distorted result.’ Container Corp., 463 U.S. at 170 , 103 S.Ct. at 2942 (quoting Moorman, 437 U.S. at 274 , 98 S.Ct. at 2345 , in turn quoting Hans Rees’, 283 U.S. at 135 , 51 S.Ct. at 389 , and Norfolk & W.

2002Under this branch of the analysis, a reviewing court will disallow application of an apportionment scheme if the taxpayer shows that the taxable value attributed to the state ‘is in fact out of all appropriate proportion to the business transacted ... in that state, or has led to a grossly distorted result.’ Container Corp., 463 U.S. at 170 , 103 S.Ct. at 2942 (quoting Moorman, 437 U.S. at 274 , 98 S.Ct. at 2345 , in turn quoting Hans Rees’, 283 U.S. at 135 , 51 S.Ct. at 389 , and Norfolk & W.

2002Under this branch of the analysis, a reviewing court will disallow application of an apportionment scheme if the taxpayer shows that the taxable value attributed to the state ‘is in fact out of all appropriate proportion to the business transacted ... in that state, or has led to a grossly distorted result.’ Container Corp., 463 U.S. at 170 , 103 S.Ct. at 2942 (quoting Moorman, 437 U.S. at 274 , 98 S.Ct. at 2345 , in turn quoting Hans Rees’, 283 U.S. at 135 , 51 S.Ct. at 389 , and Norfolk & W.

2002Under this branch of the analysis, a reviewing court will disallow application of an apportionment scheme if the taxpayer shows that the taxable value attributed to the state ‘is in fact out of all appropriate proportion to the business transacted ... in that state, or has led to a grossly distorted result.’ Container Corp., 463 U.S. at 170 , 103 S.Ct. at 2942 (quoting Moorman, 437 U.S. at 274 , 98 S.Ct. at 2345 , in turn quoting Hans Rees’, 283 U.S. at 135 , 51 S.Ct. at 389 , and Norfolk & W.

1937In the opinion this court cites with approval the statement of Mr. Justice Walling in Gough v. Halperin, 306 Pa. 230 , 159 A. 447 , reading as follows: “The company cannot take advantage of the insured’s inactivity caused directly by the assurance of its own authorized agent.” In view of the facts that Zierden was shown to be the branch claim manager for the appellant company, that he made an investigation of the accident giving rise to *295 this action, and that as a representative of the appellant company he interviewed John Monte and engaged counsel to represent Monte in this case, we think

1937In the opinion this court cites with approval the statement of Mr. Justice Walling in Gough v. Halperin, 306 Pa. 230 , 159 A. 447 , reading as follows: “The company cannot take advantage of the insured’s inactivity caused directly by the assurance of its own authorized agent.” In view of the facts that Zierden was shown to be the branch claim manager for the appellant company, that he made an investigation of the accident giving rise to *295 this action, and that as a representative of the appellant company he interviewed John Monte and engaged counsel to represent Monte in this case, we think

1935This branch of the defense is ruled by the case of General Motors A. C. v. Hartman, 114 Pa. Superior Ct. 544 , 174 A. 795 .

1935This branch of the defense is ruled by the case of General Motors A. C. v. Hartman, 114 Pa. Superior Ct. 544 , 174 A. 795 .

1917The standard by which the evidence must be measured in case of such a contention has been very recently laid down by the Supreme Court in Livingstone v. Boston Insurance Company, 255 Pa. 1 .

1915In the case against the Midvale Steel Co., supra, Mr. Justice Dean said (p. 629) : “The plaintiff has an unquestioned right as a common carrier to make reasonable rules to speed the unloading of its cars; cars are for the transportation of freight, jnot for its storage.” A further contention on behalf of appellant is, that what it terms the “average rule,” which would take the average time of detention, is more equitable than the “straight demurrage rule.” But as has already been pointed out, we have held that the latter rule is to be regarded as reasonable in the absence of proof to the contr

1913They sue by their mother as their natural guardian and next friend, and there is ample authority for the proposition that a minor child may lawfully so sue in Pennsylvania: Turner v. Partridge, 3 P. & W. 172; Heft v. McGill, 3 Pa. 256 ; O’Donnell v. Broad, 149 Pa. 24 .

1913They sue by their mother as their natural guardian and next friend, and there is ample authority for the proposition that a minor child may lawfully so sue in Pennsylvania: Turner v. Partridge, 3 P. & W. 172; Heft v. McGill, 3 Pa. 256 ; O’Donnell v. Broad, 149 Pa. 24 .

1858Applications of this branch of the rule may be seen in Hibshman v. Dulleban, 4 Watts 183 ; Martin v. Gernandt, 7 Harris 124; and King v. Chase, before referred to.