Legal Opinion
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Public Utility
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided December 24, 1997No. 107; 101; 108; 102; 109; 103; 110; 104; 111; 105; 112; 106PublishedCited by 59 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
FLAHERTY, Chief Justice.
Under a new telecommunications statute, Bell Atlantic Pennsylvania, Inc., filed a network modernization plan which proposed alternative regulation for noncompetitive. services that featured a price cap formula for changing rates; classifi*454cation of six specific services as competitive and therefore subject to deregulation; and a commitment to substantial investment in Bell’s telecommunications infrastructure. Following extensive hearings, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) required major modifications to the plan, which Bell accepted.…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Philadelphia Electric Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- SmithKline Beckman Corp. v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- UGI Corp. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Alpha Auto Sales, Inc. v. Department of State, Bureau of Professional & Occupational AffairsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Barasch v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by59 opinions
- Mercury Trucking, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
- Arippa v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Energy Conservation Council v. Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
- Coalition for Affordable Utility Services & Energy Efficiency v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
- Faldowski v. Eighty Four Mining Co.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.