East Hempfield Township v. Lancaster
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Dissent
Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Jones :
A determination of the instant appeal must begin with the conceded facts that the Authority, instead of fixing the water rates, delegated its responsibility to do so to the City and that it was the City which fixed the amount and schedule, of the water rates. Although created by the City, the Authority is not an agent of the City but rather an independent agency of the Commonwealth (Simon Appeal, 408 Pa. 464, 468, 184 A. 2d 695 (1962)) and its powers and duties are delineated, defined and limited in the legislation under the provi*413sions of which it was…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Shirk v. Lancaster CitySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Calabrese v. Collier Township Municipal AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
- Simon AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
- Yezioro v. North Fayette County Municipal AuthoritySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
- Rankin v. Chester Municipal AuthoritySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.