Legal Opinion · Dissent

Rohrbaugh v. Pennsylvania PUC

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 26, 1999Published

1DissentNigro, Justice

The majority concludes that a utility company does not violate its statutory duty to provide reasonable and adequate service as required by Section 1501 of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 1501, where extensive damage is caused to a rental property after the utility company disconnects utility service for the property at a ratepayer’s request in the dead of winter without first notifying the landlord of the disconnection. In so doing, the majority reverses the order of the Commonwealth Court which found that West Penn Power Company (“West Penn”) violated its statutory duty to provide…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Love v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  2. E. J. McAleer & Co. v. Iceland Products, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  3. Donnelly v. BauerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  4. Fogle v. Malvern Courts, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  5. Gerstell Et Ux. v. KnightSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942

2 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