Legal Opinion

Bingaman v. Pub. Serv. Com.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 21, 1932No. Appeal 194PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Trexler, P. J.,

The complaint against the appellant, S. A. Bingaman, is that, without having first obtained a certificate of public convenience he in violation of law, is operating as a common carrier certain motor vehicles between Pittsburgh and Irwin, Jeannette, Greensburg and Latrobe and intermediate points. The appellant, Bigaman was in business prior to the Public Service Commission Act operating in the Borough of Latrobe, and so far as relates to that town he requires no certificate. Act of July 26,1913, P. L. 1374, Article 3, Section 12. He has, however, extended the field of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Erb v. Public Service CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  2. Keystone Warehousing Co. v. Pub. Serv. Com.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Natural Gas Service Co. v. Serv-Yu Cooperative, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 1950
  2. Rural Electric Co. v. State Board of EqualizationWyoming Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Klawansky v. Public Service CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  4. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. GornishSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  5. Circle Express Co. v. Iowa State Commerce CommissionSupreme Court of Iowa · 1957

10 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