Bell v. Ohio & Pennsylvania Railroad
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Lewis
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- appeal
- State
- Pennsylvania
Related Laws
Outcome
The Commonwealth Court reversed the lower court and reinstated the Workmen's Compensation Board's award to the widow of an aircraft ferry pilot lost at sea, holding that he qualified as an employee temporarily beyond Pennsylvania's territorial limits under the 1956 amendment to the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Excerpt
Error to the District Court of Allegheny county. This was an. application to the District Court of Allegheny county for an injunction to restrain the defendants from the use of certain works, and from prosecuting certain improvements specified in the bill, over and through a portion of the South Common of Allegheny City. On the hearing of the ease in this Court, one of the judges was absent, and the four judges, who heard it, were equally divided — the decree of the District Court was therefore affirmed. The point decided in the opinion of the chief justice was not made below, nor argued in this Court. The report of the case, is therefore confined to the opinion of the District Judge, which contains an abstract of the bill and answer, and a clear view of all the facts necessary to the understanding of the grounds upon which the decree was founded. In the opinion of the District Court the following principles were held:— That at the time? this company (the defendants) was chartered, the right of a commoner in the premises in dispute, was vested in the complainant, the right of sale or title to the commons was vested in the city of Allegheny, and the right of eminent domain in the state. When the legislature has granted common ground to a city for public purposes, the right of eminent domain, existing' in the state, is not thereby exhausted, but may be abridged and devoted to other purposes. The right of eminent domain is inalienable and inexhaustible, and may be exercised as often as the sovereign power may choose, within the provisions of the constitution as to compensation. Of the occasions proper for the exercise of this power, the legislature is to judge, limited only by the public utility of the object. If the principle applies to a grant of land, a fortiori it will apply to a mere easement issuing out of land. Where there has been no exercise of the right of common for more than twenty years, quc
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Disability, Ohio Civil Rights Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act, Ohio Civil Rights Commission, substantially limits, physical impairment, constructive discharge, R.C. Chapter 4112, R.C. 4112.06(E), R.C. 4112.08, R.C. 4112.02(A), Adm. Code 4112-5-08(E), Adm. Code 4112-5-01, 42 U.S.C. 12102(4), 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(j)(1)(i), earnings, back pay
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.