Eisel v. U. S. Slicing Machine Co.

407 A.2d 36, 267 Pa. Super. 528, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2599
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJuly 6, 1979
DocketNo. 652
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 407 A.2d 36 (Eisel v. U. S. Slicing Machine Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Eisel v. U. S. Slicing Machine Co., 407 A.2d 36, 267 Pa. Super. 528, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2599 (Pa. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division, which sustained appellee East Carson Packing Company’s preliminary objections to the complaint of appellant, and thereby dismissed appellant’s complaint. On appeal, appellant challenges the constitutionality under both the federal and the Pennsylvania constitutions of Section 303(b) of the Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act. Act of December 5, 1974, P.L. 782, No. 263, § 6 (77 P.S. § 481(b)). Appellant contends that Section 303(b) violates his right to equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, denies him access to the courts and remedy by due course of law, thereby violating Article I, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and limits the amount recoverable by him in a cause of action, thereby violating Article III, Section 18 of our state constitution.

The issues appellant seeks to raise were addressed by this court in Tsarnas v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 262 Pa.Super. 417, 396 A.2d 1241 (1978), wherein we held that Section 303(b) passed constitutional muster. In that case, a majority of the court was of the opinion that Section 303(b) violated neither the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution nor Article III, Section 18 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and we held, by an equally divided court, that Section 303(b) did not violate Article I, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

We find the Tsarnas case to control the instant appeal, and we therefore affirm the order of the court below.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kline v. Arden H. Verner Co.
453 A.2d 1035 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1983)
Kline v. Arden H. Verner Co.
39 Pa. D. & C.3d 325 (Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas, 1981)
Pupo v. Janney Cylinder Co.
12 Pa. D. & C.3d 617 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
407 A.2d 36, 267 Pa. Super. 528, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eisel-v-u-s-slicing-machine-co-pasuperct-1979.