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.

D. F. BAST v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION. (01/21/58)

January 21, 1958

D. F. BAST, INC. ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION.



Appeals, Nos. 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 239, Oct. T., 1957, from orders of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Docket No. A.78535, Folder 2, Amendment A, in case of D. F. Bast, Inc. et al. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and Bob Young Trucking, Inc., intervening appellee. Order affirmed.

COUNSEL

William J. Wilcox, with him Snyder, Wert, Wilcox, Frederick & Doll, for appellants.

R. H. Shertz, with him Paul F. Barnes, and Shertz, Barnes & Shertz, for appellants.

George A. Rupp, and Butz, Hudders, Tallman & Rupp, for appellants.

John E. Fullerton, for appellant.

Paul Ribner, Assistant Counsel, with him Thomas M. Kerrigan, Acting Counsel, for Public Utility Commission, appellee.

Gene D. Smith, for applicant, intervening appellee.

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

Author: Wright

[ 185 Pa. Super. Page 490]

OPINION BY WRIGHT, J.

On May 15, 1956, Bob Young Trucking, Inc., a certificated common carrier, applied to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission for an amendment to its existing certificate seeking authority "to transport as a Class D carrier all types and forms of steel and metal articles from the City of Bethlehem to points in Pennsylvania". Protests were filed by a number of other certificated common carriers. After taking extensive testimony at hearings on June 25, September 4 and 5, and October 15, 1956, the Commission, by short form order dated April 15, 1957, amended the applicant's certificate to include the following authority: "To transport, as a Class D carrier, fabricated or structural iron and steel articles, requiring the use of specially constructed vehicles such as pole trailers, flatbed trailers or low-side trailers, from the City of Bethlehem, Northampton and Lehigh Counties, to points in Pennsylvania, excluding the transportation of manufactured iron and steel articles for Bethlehem Steel Company to the City of Johnstown, the Boroughs of Franklin and Conemaugh and the Township of West Taylor, Cambria County". Seven of the protestants appealed. Upon the Commission's petition, we remitted the record for the preparation of a long form order.

[ 185 Pa. Super. Page 491]

As filed on September 3, 1957, the long form order further limits the grant of additional authority "to points in Pennsylvania within 100 miles of Bethlehem".

Briefly stated, the contentions advanced by appellants are (1) that the applicant failed to prove need for the proposed service or inadequacy of the existing service; (2) that the applicant is unfit to be granted additional authority. In limine, it should be noted that the applicant operates in a highly specialized field. Its equipment is designed to handle large, lengthy and unwieldy shapes and structures of iron and steel. A complete repair and maintenance shop services this equipment and also designs and constructs pole trailers of a size and capacity to haul extremely large pieces. The driver-personnel is specially trained to handle the transportation of bulky and cumbersome fabricated and structural articles. Applicant's existing rights are set forth in the footnote.*fn1 There is no question as to its capacity to perform the service for which authority is requested.

[ 185 Pa. Super. Page 492]

Section 1107 of the Public Utility Law of 1937, P.L. 1053, 66 P.S. 1437, provides that "Any appeal to the Superior Court shall be determined upon the record certified by the commission to the court ... The order of the commission shall not be vacated or set aside, either in whole or in part, except for error of law or lack of evidence to support the finding, determination, or order of the commission, or violation of constitutional rights". Section 1112, 66 P.S. 1442, further provides that "Whenever the commission shall make any rule, regulation, finding, determination, or order under the provisions of this act, the same shall be prima facie evidence of the facts found, ...


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.