Legal Opinion · Dissent

United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 23, 2003No. M-00981098, M-00981119, & M-00991293Published

1DissentChief Justice Cappy

In my view, the majority decides this appeal on issues that the appellant, United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”), did not raise, and grants UPS relief that UPS did not request. I must, therefore, respectfully dissent.

This appeal arises out of the Application to Enforce Unappealed Final Decision (“Application to Enforce”) that UPS filed in the Commonwealth Court. In the Application to Enforce, UPS asserted that the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“PUC”) failed to comply with the Commonwealth *318Court’s prior order in United Parcel Service, Inc. v. PUC, 789 A.2d 353 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001) (“UPS…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Danville Area School District v. Danville Area Education Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  2. United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2001

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API