Legal Opinion
Commonwealth v. Hill
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Decided March 14, 1950No. Appeal, 291PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Fine, J.:
Charles F. Hill, Jr., appeals from his conviction of having operated his motor vehicle as a common carrier within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania without a certificate of public convenience or contract carrier permit, contrary to §§201 (b) and 804 of the Public Utility Law.
Ontario Land Company, pier 179 North, Philadelphia, is a lumber terminal for vessels arriving from the west coast. Ward Pollock, an investigator for the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, received a complaint about a carrier about to engage in transportation of lumber from pier 179 North, to…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad v. SettleSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Standard Oil Co. of KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Railroad Commission of Ohio v. Worthington, Receiver of Wheeling & Lake Erie Railroad CompanySupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. IowaSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Commonwealth v. SmithSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
- Commonwealth v. WeinsteinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
- Commonwealth v. CasertaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
- Commonwealth v. Heintz, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Mercer County1970
- Commonwealth v. O'DonnellDauphin County Court of Quarter Sessions · 1953
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.