Legal Opinion

Phillips v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 17, 1956No. Appeal, No. 22PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Gunther, J.,

In March, 1955 the Philadelphia Electric Company applied to the Public Utility Commission for approval to acquire a right-of-way across appellants’ farm. To this application an answer was filed stating that the condemnation was contrary to public convenience and *627necessity. Twenty seven other property owners who were affected by the application were allowed to intervene. A hearing was held, testimony taken, and on November 2S, 1955, the commission made an order approving the application and issued a certificate of public convenience and necessity. This appeal followed.

Is…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Pittsburgh, Ft. Wayne & Chicago Ry. v. PeetSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
  2. Coplay Cement Manufacturing Co. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  3. Allegh. V. R. v. Pittsb. Junction R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
  4. Byers v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
  5. Lower Chichester Township v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1956

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Stellwagon v. PyleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
  2. West Penn Power Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
  3. Willits v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  4. Charch v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
  5. Hess v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2014

4 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