Legal Opinion

Philadelphia v. Holmes Electric Protective Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 9, 1939No. Appeals, 167 and 170PublishedCited by 54 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Me. Justice Steen,

By ordinance of June 4, 1906, the City of Philadelphia granted permission to defendant corporation “to carry its wires under and beneath the highways of the City of Philadelphia for connecting buildings occupied by its customers with its central station,” and to use and operate such wires “for the purpose of conducting the business of conveying for its customers a burglar alarm, night watch and fire alarm signal system.” Section 5 of the ordinance provided that defendant should pay to the City, on the first day of March in each and every year, “two per cent of the…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Metropolitan Railroad v. District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  2. Breinig v. Allegheny CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  3. Russell v. SebastianSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
  4. West Penn Railways Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  5. Valley Railways v. HarrisburgSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924

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

3Cited by54 opinions

  1. City of Philadelphia v. Lead Industries Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
  2. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. Atlantic Richfield Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  3. Robinson Protective Alarm Co. v. City of PhiladelphiaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
  4. Northampton County Area Community College v. Dow Chemical, U.S.A.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  5. Huntingdon Finance Corp. v. Newtown Artesian Water Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995

49 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