Legal Opinion

Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 21, 2006No. 19 MAP 2005PublishedCited by 60 opinions

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

  1. Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. United States v. CartwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  3. Uniontown Area School District v. Pennsylvania Human Relations CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  4. Housing Authority of Chester v. Pennsylvania State Civil Service CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  5. Slawek v. BD. OF MED. ED. & LICENSURESupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991

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

3Cited by60 opinions

  1. Tire Jockey Service, Inc. v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  2. Malt Beverages Distributors Ass'n v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  3. Northwestern Youth Services, Inc. v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  4. MacK Zoning AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  5. 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.

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

Powered by the Exa API