Legal Opinion

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 4, 1983No. Appeal, No. 2925 C.D. 1981PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Judge Doyle,

Before this Court are a petition for review by The Baltimore and Ohio Roalroad Company (B & 0) from a decision and order of the Public Utility Commission (PUC) and a motion to quash said petition by the PUC.

*383On July 14, 1981, the PUC entered a decision and order approving an application filed by Upper Chichester Township to alter a crossing where Carpenter Road intersects the B & O’s tracks. The order required, inter alia, B & 0 to bear both fifty percent of the cost of widening the crossing and fifty percent of any costs incurred by Bell Telephone Co. and Philadelphia…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Abramson v. Commonwealth, Public Utility CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  2. Brinks, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  3. Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  4. Borough of Platea v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  5. Appeal of Mobilfone of Northeastern Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1976

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. J.A.M. Cab Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  2. National Fuel Gas Distribution Corp. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  3. Carbonaire Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  4. Hoskins Taxi Service, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

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

Powered by the Exa API