Legal Opinion
City of Philadelphia v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Decided November 20, 1998PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PELLEGRINI, Judge.
The City of Philadelphia (City) appeals from an order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) reassigning to it certain maintenance responsibilities for the Woodland Avenue Bridge (Bridge) that this Court in Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 140 Pa.Cmwlth. 270, 592 A.2d 797 (Pa.Cmwlth.1991), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 531 Pa. 642, 611 A.2d 714 (1992) (SEPTA I), ordered be borne *847by Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA).
On October 8, 1987, the PUC began an investigation…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. EpsteinSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Commonwealth v. StarrSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Donovan v. City of DallasSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Peck v. JennessSupreme Court of the United States · 1849
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Horsehead Resource Development Co. v. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental ProtectionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2002
- Kelso Woods Ass'n v. SwansonCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Southeastern Penn. Transp. v. Penn. Pub. Util.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2002
- Township of Middletown v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1999