Legal Opinion

AT&T v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 18, 1998PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

PELLEGRINI, Judge.

AT&T and Sprint Communications Company L.P. (Sprint)1 appeal an order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Commission)2 denying them reimbursement *982of their costs for relocating fiber optic cables at five rail-highway crossings.3

I

This case emanates from the need by Delaware and Hudson Railway Company, Inc. (Delaware and Hudson) to lower railroad tracks at a number of rail-highway crossings in northeastern Pennsylvania to accommodate double stack container railroad cars. Because the Pennsylvania General Assembly wanted to promote commerce within the Commonwealth by…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Kelly v. ZamarelloAlaska Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Uniontown Area School District v. Pennsylvania Human Relations CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  4. Bethenergy Mines Inc. v. Commonwealth, Department of Environmental ProtectionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  5. City of Philadelphia v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1996

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Millcreek Township v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API