Legal Opinion

Midland B. v. Steubenville, Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 24, 1930No. Appeal, 16PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Me. Justice Sadlee,

The Borough of Midland granted consent to the street railway company, defendant, formed in part by merger, on November 12, 1917, with a like corporation doing business in the State of Ohio, and physically connected therewith, to occupy certain streets with its tracks, poles and wires. The original grant was made on January 16,1907, under the provisions of the Act of May 14,1889 (P. L. 211), to the constituent Pennsylvania line, which had the state border as its terminus. By ordinance of January 14, 1913, the right to use additional highways was given; thereafter…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Hartley v. LangkampSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
  2. St. Clair Borough v. Tamaqua & Pottsville Elec. Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
  3. City of Scranton v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
  4. York Water Co. v. YorkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
  5. Fogelsville & Trexlertown Electric Co. v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Feingold v. Bell of PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  2. Taylor v. MooreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  3. Lansdale Borough v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
  4. West, Admrx. v. YoungSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  5. Sacramento Municipal Utility District v. Gas & Electric Co.California Court of Appeal · 1946

19 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