Legal Opinion · Dissent

Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Stiely

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 24, 1968No. Appeal, No. 22Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Roberts:

The majority proceeds upon the assumption that the meaning of the word “road” in the statute at issue can be decided as if this Court has never had occasion in the past to pass upon the meaning of this word. Although arguably unambiguous on its face, in other cases we have clearly held that the word “road” in fact means public road; in these cases the word was equally unambiguous yet we decided that the Legislature intended a different meaning, i.e., public road.

Of greatest aid in the resolution of this issue is the canon of statutory construction…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. Sitkin's Junk Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  2. Fischer v. PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
  3. Smith v. WornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  4. McDowell v. Good Chevrolet-Cadillac, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  5. Kister v. ReeserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1881

17 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