Legal Opinion
Pittsburgh v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Decided December 28, 1956No. Appeals, Nos. 57, 58, and 64 to 103PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rhodes, P.J.,
This is the second rate proceeding instituted by The Manufacturers Light and Heat Company within a pe*555riod of fifteen months.1 On December 30, 1954, Manufacturers filed four tariff supplements providing for increases in rates for general service and industrial service in Pennsylvania. To Tariff — Gas Pa. P. U. G. No. 37, applicable to general service and industrial service customers other than Lukens Steel Company, supplements 12 and 13 were filed. Supplement 12, to be effective March 4, 1955, proposed an increase in total revenue of $585,063; supplement 13, to be…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Smyth v. AmesSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Smyth v. Ames; Smyth v. Smith; Smyth v. HigginsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Lindheimer v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Galveston Electric Co. v. City of GalvestonSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Georgia Railway & Power Co. v. Railroad CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1978
- Barasch v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Narragansett Electric Co. v. HarschSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1977
- Pittsburgh v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
- City of Alton v. Commerce CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1960
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.