Legal Opinion
Pittsburgh v. P. U. C.
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Decided December 7, 1971No. Appeals, Nos. 105 C. D. 1971 and 128 C. D. 1971PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Judge Rogers,
The intervening appellee, Duquesne Light Company, has filed motions to quash appeals taken by the City of Pittsburgh and the Atomic Energy Commission from an order of the Public Utility Commission allowing Duquesne Light Company a rate increase. The appeals thus attacked were taken in each instance by the filing of a praecipe for appeal only.
The ground of the motions to quash is that the appeals were not taken in accordance with required statutory procedures.
The Pennsylvania Public Utility Law, Act of 1937, May 28, P. L. 1053, 66 P.S. 1101, provides a detailed procedure…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Nixon v. NixonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Oteri AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Layton v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
- York v. Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
- Jenner Township Annexation CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Mercury Trucking, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
- Rostosky v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- Williamson v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver LicensingCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
- Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Pennsylvania Gas & Water Co.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Castle v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & ParoleCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.