Legal Opinion · Dissent

Purolator Security, Inc. v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 17, 1977No. Appeals, Nos. 787 and 824 C.D. 1976Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Judge Mencer :

I respectfully dissent.

Essentially, I believe that this Court’s extremely narrow scope of review and the record in this case preclude our reversal of the interpretation by the Public Utility-Commission (PUC) of its own order. The majority has correctly noted that the PUC is peculiarly fitted'to interpret its own orders and to determine the extent and the limit of transportation rights granted to a carrier under its certificate of public convenience. See Ferry v. Public Utility Commission, 192 Pa. Superior Ct. 331, 162 A.2d 266 (1960); Marmer v. Public…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. W. J. Dillner Transfer Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
  2. Commonwealth v. Brink's, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
  3. Ferry v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
  4. Marmer v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  5. T. M. Zimmerman Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1961

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

Powered by the Exa API