Legal Opinion
Solar Electric Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Decided April 25, 1939No. Appeals, 179 and 183PublishedCited by 63 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The magnitude of the record in these appeals — nearly ten thousand printed pages — is out of all proportion to the size of the utility involved or the field of its operations; and those responsible for its unnecessary expansion should be visited with a share of its cost. Where, as in the Scranton-Spring Brook Water Company cases (105 Pa. Superior Ct. 203, 160 A. 230, and 119 Pa. Superior Ct. 117, 181 A. 77) the territory involved covered a large section of two counties, embracing two large cities and many other good sized cities and boroughs, and the valuation of the water system…
2Cases cited52 opinions
- Smyth v. AmesSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Bluefield Water Works & Improvement Co. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
- State ex rel. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Service Commission of MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- City of Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by63 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. General Telephone Co. of the SoutheastSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
- Bell Tel. Co. of Pa. v. DriscollSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Davenport Water Co. v. Iowa State Commerce CommissionSupreme Court of Iowa · 1971
- Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. State Corp. CommissionSupreme Court of Kansas · 1963
- State Ex Rel. Pac. T. T. Co. v. D.P.S.Washington Supreme Court · 1943
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.