Legal Opinion · Concurrence

United Telephone Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 20, 1996Published

1ConcurrencePellegrini, Judge

I concur with the majority that the Public Utility Commission’s (PUC) proposed method of monitoring in this case is not within the exceptions to Section 5704 of the Pennsylvania Wiretap Act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5704, but write separately because, unlike the majority, I believe that the PUC can consider whether the wiretap laws preclude it from exercising its statutory obligation to exercise oversight of a public utility. If the PUC cannot consider whether such statutory defenses are proper, at worst, there would be gridlock between the parties and, at best, parties would have to seek declaratory…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Fairview Water Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  2. Barasch v. Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  3. Barasch v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  4. Pennsylvania Electric Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  5. McClellan v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1993

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API