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.

RUBIN v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION. (01/16/62)

January 16, 1962

RUBIN, APPELLANT,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION.



Appeal, No. 337, Oct. T., 1961, from order of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, No. 17601, in case of Betty Rubin v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission et al. Order affirmed.

COUNSEL

William Brodsky, for appellant.

Daniel F. Joella, Assistant Counsel, with him Joseph I. Lewis, Chief Counsel, for Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, appellee.

James L. Stern, Deputy City Solicitor, with him Ellis A. Horwitz, Assistant City Solicitor, and David Berger, City Solicitor, for City of Philadelphia, intervening appellee.

E. Everett Mather, with him John B. King, for Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, intervening appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.

Author: Rhodes

[ 197 Pa. Super. Page 159]

OPINION BY RHODES, P.J.

On March 31, 1961, Betty Rubin filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission alleging that respondent, Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, refused to furnish telephone service to her at her residence, 153 West Carpenter Lane, Philadelphia, and asking the commission to order restoration of such service. The telephone company filed an answer admitting its refusal to furnish service since, in view of the history of complainant and her husband, Maurice Rubin, showing arrests and convictions for bookmaking, it had reason to believe that the service would be used in maintaining an illegal lottery and bookmaking. A hearing on the complaint and answer was held on May 8, 1961, and on July 10, 1961, the commission entered an order dismissing the complaint. From this order complainant appealed.

At the hearing appellant testified that there is presently no telephone service at her home at 153 West Carpenter Lane, and none available nearby; that she is in poor health, having undergone partial stomach removal, and is suffering from ulcerated colitis; and

[ 197 Pa. Super. Page 160]

    that the state of her health prevents her from practicing her profession of licensed beautician. Appellant also stated that she makes flower arrangements and needs a telephone, not only for health and safety reasons but also for business purposes. Appellant lives with her husband, Maurice Rubin, at 153 West Carpenter Lane.

The proceedings on the husband's complaint, filed on July 31, 1957, seeking telephone service at the same address, and the action of the commission in affirming the telephone company's refusal to install service at that time were made a part ...


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.