Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Allegheny County Port Authority v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 28, 1967No. Appeal, No. 8Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Roberts:

I agree with the majority that, although the Commission has the statutory authority to allocate costs of maintenance or reconstruction of “Black’s Bridge” crossing, it can do so as to the Port Authority only if that body is concerned with the particular highway-rail crossing in issue. I further agree that the Authority is not at this moment a concerned party and thus reject, primarily because of the discretion given to the Authority to choose its routes, any theory that the Authority has assumed a type of transferee liability.

However, in…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Pittsburgh Railways Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
  2. Allegheny County Port Authority v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  3. Allegheny County Port Authority v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1967

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

Powered by the Exa API