Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CITY PHILADELPHIA v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION ET AL. (01/19/54)

January 19, 1954

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION ET AL.



COUNSEL

Harold E. Kohn, Sp. Deputy to City Sol., William T. Coleman, Jr., Asst. Sp. Deputy, Abraham L. Freedman, City Sol., Philadelphia, for appellant.

Jack F. Aschinger, Mechanicsburg, Clarence M. Freedman, Lloyd S. Benjamin, Harrisburg, for appellee Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.

Hamilton C. Connor, Jr., Peter Platten, Allen Hunter White, Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, Philadelphia, for intervening appellee, Philadelphia Transp. Co.

Before Rhodes, P. J., and Hirt, Reno, Ross, Gunther, Wright and Woodside, Jj.

Author: Rhodes

[ 174 Pa. Super. Page 643]

PER CURIAM.

The order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission of December 8, 1953, is affirmed. The opinion of this Court will be filed at a subsequent date.

The order issued by this Court on December 15, 1953, making the appeals a supersedeas of the Commission's order, is vacated, and supersedeas is terminated.

RHODES, President Judge.

These appeals by the City of Philadelphia relate to orders of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission granting fare increases under tariffs filed by the Philadelphia Transportation Company.

In City of Philadelphia v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 173 Pa. Super. 38, 95 A.2d 244, we reviewed an order of the Commission of December 23, 1952, allowing rate increases under tariffs filed February

[ 174 Pa. Super. Page 64429]

, 1952, by the Philadelphia Transportation Company, which provided for the elimination of the token rate of 13 1/3 cents for a single vehicle ride and for the charging of a straight 15 cent fare. We reversed the order and remanded the record to the Commission (page 55 of 173 Pa. Super., page 252 of 95 A.2d) 'for the taking of such additional testimony as may be necessary, and for the making of additional findings to accord with this opinion; and, after the adjustment of the findings upon which the present order is based, to require acceptable tariffs to be filed canceling the tariffs filed on February 29, 1952, and providing for such annual revenues as the Commission may find required to produce the allowed return.' Upon return of the record we directed that the proceedings should be consolidated with any pending proceedings before the Commission bearing on the question of reasonable rates to be charged by the company. The city had taken an appeal to this Court from the order of December 23, 1952, and asked that the appeals act as a supersedeas, which request, after hearing, was denied; the rates went into effect on December 31, 1952.

Pending the disposition of the increase in rates under the tariffs filed February 29, 1952, and approved by the Commission on December 23, 1952, the company, on February 11, 1953, filed new tariffs which were to become effective March 14, 1953. They provided for an increase in the basic charge for single vehicle rides from 15 cents cash to 18 cents cash or two tokens for 35 cents. On March 9, 1953, the Commission suspended the operation of the tariffs for a period of six months until September 14, 1953, and by concurrent order instituted an investigation on its own motion for the purpose of determining the fairness, justness, reasonableness, and lawfulness of the rates and charges for

[ 174 Pa. Super. Page 645]

    the transportation services of the company. The investigation was to include consideration of the prescription of temporary rates under the provisions of section 310 of the Public Utility Law of 1937, 66 P.S. ยง 1150. On August 24, 1953, the Commission extended the suspension period for an additional three months to December 14, 1953.

The City of Philadelphia, on March 2, 1953, filed its complaint against the proposed rates under the tariffs of February 11, 1953, alleging the proposed rates to be unjust and unreasonable except to the extent they would produce increased revenues ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.