Legal Opinion

Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Seder

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 25, 2016PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Justice BAER.1

This appeal presents the issue of whether Subsection 335(d) of the Public Utility Code (“Code”), 66 Pa.C.S. § 335(d), requires the Public Utility Commission (“PUC”) to disclose a “tip letter” and an investigative file associated with a settlement agreement entered into by PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (“PPL”) and the PUC’s Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement (“I & E”), which was ap*167proved by the PUC’s Commissioners (“PUC Commissioners”). For the reasons that follow, we hold that Subsection 335(d) clearly and unambiguously obligates disclosure. We, therefore,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. SWB YANKEES LLC v. WintermantelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  2. Shafer Electric & Construction v. MantiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  3. Pennsylvania Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Commonwealth Department of General ServicesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  4. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. SederCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2014

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Rancosky v. Washington National Ins. Co., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  2. Pittman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & ParoleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  3. Snyder Bros., Inc. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
  4. Bailets, R. v. Pa. Turnpike Commission, Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
  5. Ford, A., Aplt. v. American States Ins.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2017

17 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