Legal Opinion

Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 13, 1993No. 1386 C.D. 1992PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DOYLE, Judge.

Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) appeals an order of the Public Utility Commission (Commission) sustaining the complaint of United Transportation Union (UTU) which prohibited Conrail’s operation of light engines in the long nose configuration with only one engineer.

This matter began on May 26, 1983, when the UTU filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that Conrail was operating “light engines” 1 in Pennsylvania with only one engineer and that such operating practice was unsafe. The complaint sought abatement of this practice by any means other than requiring…

Also in this document: Dissent.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. At & T Communications v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  2. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  3. Paxtowne v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  4. Allegheny Center Associates v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1990

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  2. Greene Township Board of Supervisors v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  3. Greene Township Board of Supervisors v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  4. Hess v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  5. Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1996

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API