Legal Opinion · Dissent

Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 21, 2006No. 19 MAP 2005Published

1DissentJustice Newman

The Majority concludes that the demonstration of public need for water, alone, is insufficient to require a water company to extend its water lines and service to the residents of Mount Pleasant Township (Township) without contributions from those residents in aid of construction. Based on this precept, the Majority affirms the Order of the Commonwealth Court to require contribution in aid of construction by the residents of the Township before the Pennsylvania American Water Company (PAWC) will begin the water line extensions.1 *636Because I believe that the determination of the Public Utility…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Altoona v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  2. Ridley Township v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
  3. Colonial Products Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
  4. McCormick v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  5. Fairview Water Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1980

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