Legal Opinion

Puhl v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 21, 1939No. Appeal, 131PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by Parker, J.,

The Public Utility Commission refused an application of Puhl and Falconer for a contract carrier permit under the so-called “Grandfather” clause of the Public Utility Law, and the applicants have appealed from the order so made. We think the application should have been granted.

The commission, in disposing of the matter, after hearing, treated the application as if it were one for permission to act as a common carrier and assigned as a reason for the refusal of the permit that “the applicants have failed to establish......that approval of the application is necessary or…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. McDonald v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. United States v. MaherSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  3. Klawansky v. Public Service CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  4. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. GornishSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  5. Phillips v. Public Service CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Spackman v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  2. Infantino v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  3. Reconsideration of Real Estate Broker's License, Pennsylvania Department of Justice1943

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

Powered by the Exa API