Legal Opinion · Dissent

Honey Brook Water Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 25, 1994No. 2807 C.D. 1992Published

1DissentPellegrini, Judge

I respectfully dissent. The imposition of a penalty by the Public Utility Commission (PUC), sua sponte, upon a utility where the complaint gave no notice of the violation upon which the penalty is based and that fines were being sought violates due process.

Margaret Shulzitski, Mr. and Mrs. Raymond Sakrewsky, Edward and Arlene S. Burgess, and Bonita Hoats each filed a separate complaint with the PUC alleging that Honey Brook Water Company (Honey Brook) was providing inadequate water service.1 Each of the complaints requested different forms of relief. Shulzitski requested that the PUC place…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division v. CraftSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. City of Erie v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  3. Pocono Water Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  4. Duquesne Light Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API