CEN. STGE. & TRANS. CO. OF HBG. ET AL. v. PA. P.U.C.

Nos. 3162 C.D. 1982, 3182 C.D. 1982, 3230 C.D. 1982, 3233 C.D. 1982, 3246 C.D. 1982, 3264 C.D. 1982, and 3300 C.D. 1982.

82 Pa.Commw. 21 (1984)

In Re: Central Storage & Transfer Co. of Harrisburg and W. C. McQuaide, Inc., Petitioners v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Respondent. Samuel J. Lansberry, Inc., Petitioner v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Respondent. A. Duie Pyle, Inc. et al., Petitioners v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Respondent. John E. Brown et al., Petitioners v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Respondent. Brocious Trucking, Inc. et al., Petitioners v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Respondent. Parks Moving & Storage, Inc. et al., Petitioners v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Respondent. Bob Young Trucking, Inc. et al., Petitioners v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Respondent.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

April 24, 1984.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Christian V. Graf, with him David H. Radcliff, Graf, Knupp & Andrews, P.C., for petitioners, Central Storage & Transfer Co. of Harrisburg, W. C. McQuaide, Inc., and Samuel J. Lansberry, Inc.

James W. Patterson, with him Edward L. Ciemniecki, Rubin, Quinn & Moss, for petitioners, A. Duie Pyle, Inc. et al.

Thomas M. Mulroy, Pillar and Mulroy, P.C., for petitioners, John Brown et al.

William J. LaVelle, with him John A. Vuono, Vuono, LaVelle & Gray, for petitioners, Brocious Trucking, Inc. et al. and Parks Moving & Storage, Inc. et al.

Alan Kahn, Abrahams & Loewenstein, for petitioners, Bob Young Trucking, Inc. et al.

Terrance J. Fitzpatrick, Assistant Counsel, with him James W. Patterson, Assistant Counsel, Alfred N. Lowenstein, Deputy Chief Counsel, and Charles F. Hoffman, Chief Counsel, for respondent, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.

Argued May 12, 1983, before Judges WILLIAMS, JR., CRAIG and DOYLE, sitting as a panel of three.


OPINION BY JUDGE WILLIAMS, JR., April 24, 1984:

The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Commission) has moved to quash or dismiss seven consolidated appeals from the Commission's order to modify the substantive standards for adjudication of motor carrier applications. In support of its motion, the Commission contends that the Commission's order is not an "adjudication" under the Administrative Agency Law...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases