Legal Opinion

Lyft, Inc. v. Pa PUC K. Lyons and PG Publishing, Inc. d/b/a The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette v. Pa PUC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 31, 2016No. 843 and 974 C.D. 2015PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY JUDGE Robert SIMPSON 4

Before us are the consolidated petitions for review filed by Lyft, Inc. (Lyft) and Kim Lyons, a reporter for PG Publishing, Inc., d/b/a The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (collectively, PG) from two orders of the Public Utility Commission (PUC). Lyft challenges the PUC's rejection of the alleged proprietary status of its trip data for the period before it obtained experimental authority to operate as a transportation network company (TNC). 5 Lyft argues the PUC misapplied the standard for a protective order, and that its decision is unsupported by substantial…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. New York Times Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. Branzburg v. HayesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. Grosjean v. American Press Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
  4. Pap's A.M. v. City of ErieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  5. Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Hiko Energy, LLC v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
  2. HIKO Energy, LLC v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  3. HIKO Energy, Aplt. v. PA PUCSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
  4. HIKO Energy, LLC v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  5. J. Schneller v. Philadelphia District AttorneyCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2017

7 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