Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Pennsylvania Power Co. v. Township of Pine

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 18, 2007Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

*1254CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge McGINLEY.

The majority concludes, and I agree that Pine Township did not have the authority to require Penn Power to install its main distribution feeder line underground. I do not agree that this case should be vacated and transferred to the Commission. Instead, the trial court must be reversed and the matter remanded to the trial court to remand to Pine Township for issuance of a street opening permit to Penn Power.

This case was commenced when Penn Power filed a street opening permit with Pine Township in order to place five wooden poles for an…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Newtown Township v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API