Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Pennsylvania State University v. Public Utility Commission

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 22, 2010No. 18 C.D. 2009Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

DISSENTING AND CONCURRING OPINION BY

Judge COHN JUBELIRER.

Because I would conclude that The Pennsylvania State University (PSU) did not receive adequate notice that the 2004 Petition’s rate cap extension would not apply to all of PSU’s Tariff accounts, I respectfully dissent from Part V of the majority’s opinion. In Part V, the majority concludes that the customer bill inserts sent by Allegheny Power and the publication of the 2004 Petition in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on September 25, 2004, provided PSU with adequate notice of the “Petition case and that its Tariff 37 rights could be…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  2. In Re Nissan Motor Corporation Antitrust LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1977
  3. Pennsylvania Coal Mining Ass'n v. Insurance DepartmentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  4. Wilkes Ex Rel. Mason v. Phoenix Home Life Mutual Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  5. Wilkes v. Phoenix Home Life Mutual InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004

1 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