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.

NOERR MOTOR FREIGHT INC. ET AL. v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION. (07/17/56)

July 17, 1956

NOERR MOTOR FREIGHT INC. ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION.



Appeals, Nos. 120, 143, 144 and 158, Oct. T., 1955, from order of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Docket No. A 69239, Folder 1, Am-E, in case of Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. et al. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Order modified and, as modified affirmed.

COUNSEL

Paul F. Barnes, with him Shertz, Barnes & Shertz, for protestant, appellant.

James H. Booser, with him McNees, Wallace & Nurick, for protestants, appellants.

William J. Wilcox, for protestant, appellant.

Edward Munce and Thomas M. Kerrigan, Assistant Counsel, for Public Utility Commission.

Leo Daniels, with him Prichard, Lawler & Geltz, for applicant, intervening appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Carr, JJ.

Author: Rhodes

[ 181 Pa. Super. Page 324]

OPINION BY RHODES, P.J.

These four appeals, taken by protestant motor carriers, are from the order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission of March 14, 1955, as supplemented by its order of February 14, 1956, granting an extension in operating territory to applicant, Joseph R. Prostko, trading and doing business as Altoona-Pittsburgh Freight Line, on his application of July 31, 1953.

[ 181 Pa. Super. Page 325]

The matter was previously before us on appeal from the original order. After argument and reargument we remanded the record to the commission for clarification of that order, and to make sufficient specific findings of fact; the record was thereupon to be returned to this Court. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 180 Pa. Superior Ct. 62, 118 A.2d 248. The supplemental order now before us is in response to that remand. Our present concern is whether proper clarification has been made of the original order, and whether the findings are now adequate, are supported by substantial evidence, and sustain the order. See Zurcher v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 173 Pa. Superior Ct. 343, 98 A.2d 218; Modern Transfer Company v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 179 Pa. Superior Ct. 46, 115 A.2d 887.

It appears that prior to the application of July 31, 1953, Altoona-Pittsburgh Freight Line had been authorized to render service as a class A motor carrier between the City of Pittsburgh and the Hollidaysburg-Altoona-Tyrone area, and as a class D motor carrier between the County of Allegheny and that area. The application sought to extend both class A and class D rights eastward to Huntingdon, Mt. Union, Lewistown, Reedsville, Mifflintown, and Mifflin; and in addition it requested permission to serve the off-route point of Bellwood. The commission, after several hearings, granted the requested enlargment of both class A and class D rights specifically excluding the right "to render local service between points on the extension, spur routes, and off-route point."*fn1 There were exceptions and exclusions

[ 181 Pa. Super. Page 326]

    relating to commodities in bulk, explosives, household goods in use, and property requiring the use of special equipment; the transportation of newspapers and magazines between points served by Drenning Delivery Service was also excluded.

The order, as now supplemented, granting these rights contains a detailed analysis of the evidence concerning the public need for applicant's additional service; it also contains findings and conclusions based upon that evidence as it relates to the class A and class D rights of applicant. Since the enlargement of both class A and class D rights applies to the same territory, the evidence presented in support of the additional class A rights is largely applicable to the additional class D rights in so far as it indicates inadequacy of existing service and the extent of the requests for applicant's service. A difference is in the western terminal areas, class A being limited to the City of Pittsburgh and class D applying to the County of Allegheny.*fn2 These western terminal areas were established ...


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.