Legal Opinion

Shirk v. Lancaster City

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 23, 1933No. Appeal, 226PublishedCited by 101 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Kephart,

Lancaster, a city of tbe third class, owns its own water system supplying water to its citizens and, through water companies, to inhabitants of the suburbs. In 1931 the city decided to enlarge its plant and equipment by constructing additional storage facilities and a new and more efficient filtration plant; also to extend and improve its sewerage and drainage system by erecting a disposal plant, the latter pursuant to an order of the state department of health intended to prevent the use of the Conestoga Creek as an open sewer. Accordingly, after a report by its…

2Cases cited61 opinions

  1. City of Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
  2. Stone v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1886
  3. Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corp. v. Railroad CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
  4. Ohio Valley Water Co. v. Ben Avon BoroughSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
  5. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. North Carolina Corporation Comm'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1907

56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by101 opinions

  1. Tranter v. Alleghency County Co. AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  2. Lighton v. Abington TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  3. Solar Electric Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  4. Yeilding v. State Ex Rel. WilkinsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1936
  5. Barasch v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987

96 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