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.

BATES TAXI v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION (01/24/78)

decided: January 24, 1978.

BATES TAXI, INC., PETITIONER
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in case of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Bates Taxi, Inc., Complaint Docket Nos. 21690, 21740, 21770, 21774, 21779, 21794, 21797, 21798, 21811, 21821, 21822, 21882, and 21894, dated November 15, 1976.

COUNSEL

James J. Rahner, with him Hickey, Azpell & Rahner, for appellant.

Kenneth E. Nicely, Assistant Counsel, with him George M. Kashi, Assistant Counsel, and Barnett Satinsky, Chief Counsel, for appellee.

Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Rogers and DiSalle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Rogers.

Author: Rogers

[ 33 Pa. Commw. Page 361]

The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission filed thirteen complaints charging Bates Taxi, Inc. with violations of the Public Utility Law*fn1 and Commission Regulations in the conduct of a taxi business in Fernwood, Delaware County. The two earliest of the complaints were dated June 2, 1976 and the latest August 11, 1976. All were served soon after their dates of issuance by certified mail, apparently delivered by the postman to Bates's dispatcher on duty. Bates Taxi, Inc. filed answers to ten of the complaints denying the charges of violations. No answers were filed to three complaints because they did not come to the

[ 33 Pa. Commw. Page 362]

    notice of the officers of Bates Taxi, Inc. who filed the answers in the other cases.*fn2

Without further notice of any kind to Bates Taxi, Inc., the Commission, by order made November 15, 1976, sustained the charges laid in all thirteen complaints filed against Bates Taxi, Inc. and suspended Bates's certificate of public convenience for sixty days. Bates Taxi, Inc. appealed this order to this Court. Judge Blatt granted a supersedeas pending the disposition of the appeal.

Each of the thirteen complaints concluded with the following admonition:

It Is Ordered: That if respondent should fail to answer said complaint within twenty (20) days from service hereof or, by its answer, shall admit the allegations of this complaint, the Commission may issue an order in this matter without a hearing; otherwise, that a hearing be held at a time and place to be fixed by the Commission.

This language follows somewhat loosely that of the General Rule of Administrative Practice and Procedure applicable, to be found at 1 Pa. Code ยง 35.35:

Answers to complaints . . . shall be filed with the Agency within twenty (20) days after the date of service. . . . Any respondent failing to file an answer within the applicable period shall be deemed in default, and all relevant basic ...


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.