Berner v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Dissent
*29Dissenting Opinion by
Rhodes, P. J.:
I dissent from the majority opinion which affirms the order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in this contested rate case. The record should be returned to the Commission for complete review, and especially that the Commission may make adequate findings supported by evidence on at least two matters: (1) Transactions between the utility and affiliates; and (2) rate of return. To comprehend these questions it is important to review the basic facts relating to this appeal by ratepayers.
The appeal is from the final order of the Commission dismissing…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Smith v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1930
- American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Bell Tel. Co. of Pa. v. DriscollSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Pittsburgh v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.