Legal Opinion

Hubert v. Public Service Commission

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 1, 1935No. Appeal, 182PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Keller, P. J.,

This is an appeal by Louis M. Hubert and Earl Y. Singer, co-partners trading as East Liverpool-Pittsburgh Motor Freight, from an order of the Public Serv ice Commission refusing to grant them a certificate of public convenience to operate motor vehicles for the transportation of freight, merchandise or other personal property between Pittsburgh and the boroughs of Industry, Midland and Smiths Ferry, Pennsylvania. The appellants are already engaged as common carriers of freight in interstate service, between points in Ohio and Pittsburgh, and in their interstate route…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Terminal Taxicab Co. v. KutzSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  2. Day v. Pa. Public Service CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  3. Frantz v. Public Service CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  4. York Motor Express v. Public Service CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. McKay v. Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of Colorado · 1939
  2. Cage v. Public Service CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  3. Byham v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
  4. Makovsky Bros. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  5. Armour Transportation Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1943

5 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