Legal Opinion · Dissent

Rosemont Taxicab Co. v. Philadelphia Parking Authority

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 22, 2013Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

President Judge PELLEGRINI.

I respectfully dissent because it was appropriate for the Philadelphia Parking Authority (Authority) to consider German-town Cab Co.’s (Germantown) compliance *41history in determining whether Rosemont Taxicab Co., Inc. (Rosemont) has a propensity to operate safely and legally and the Authority’s determination in this regard is supported by substantial evidence.

First, in Brink’s Incorporated v. Public Utility Commission, 54 Pa.Cmwlth. 452, 421 A.2d 1244 (1980), rev’d on other grounds, 500 Pa. 387, 456 A.2d 1342 (1983), this Court held that the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Blount v. Philadelphia Parking AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  2. Germantown Cab Co. v. Philadelphia Parking AuthorityCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  3. Germantown Cab Co. v. Philadelphia Parking AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  4. Yellow Cab Co. of Pittsburgh v. CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  5. Brinks, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983

3 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