Purolator Security, Inc. v. Commonwealth
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
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
- W. J. Dillner Transfer Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
- Commonwealth v. Brink's, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
- Ferry v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
- Marmer v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
- T. M. Zimmerman Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1961