Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Justice CASTILLE.
The issue on appeal is whether a demonstration of public need for water alone is sufficient to require a water company to extend its water lines and service without receiving customer contribution, in an instance where the cost of the extension project would exceed the company’s expected revenue from the extension. Because we find that the Public Utility Commission’s (“PUC’s”) line extension regulations, which authorize a utility to require customer contribution in an instance such as this, are a proper application of statutory authority, we affirm.
On May 3, 2001,…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- United States v. CartwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Uniontown Area School District v. Pennsylvania Human Relations CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
- Housing Authority of Chester v. Pennsylvania State Civil Service CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Slawek v. BD. OF MED. ED. & LICENSURESupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by60 opinions
- Tire Jockey Service, Inc. v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- Malt Beverages Distributors Ass'n v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- Northwestern Youth Services, Inc. v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- MacK Zoning AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
- Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2014
55 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.