Legal Opinion · Dissent

Akron v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 5, 1971No. Appeal No. 262A,. Tr. Dkt. 1970Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Judge Manderino :

I dissent from the majority’s decision to grant a permanent injunction against the Public Utility Commission (P.U.C.) because nowhere in the record before us has it been established that the granting of the injunction is necessary to avoid irreparable harm and *637also because tbe P.U.C. does have subject matter jurisdiction.

It is obvious that no irreparable harm can result because there is an adequate remedy before the P.U.C. to test the questions which have been raised by the plaintiff. If the P.U.C. incorrectly answers the questions raised by the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Altoona v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  2. Akron Borough v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970

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

Powered by the Exa API