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.

HOSKINS TAXI SERVICE v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION (01/10/85)

decided: January 10, 1985.

HOSKINS TAXI SERVICE, INC., PETITIONER
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in case of William Hoskins, President of Hoskins Taxi Service, Inc., No. A-00095770, TX 222, 223.

COUNSEL

Val Pleet Wilson, for petitioner.

Alphonso Arnold, Jr., Assistant Counsel, with him, Daniel P. Delaney, Deputy Chief Counsel, and Charles F. Hoffman, Chief Counsel, for respondent.

Judges Rogers, Doyle and Colins, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Doyle.

Author: Doyle

[ 87 Pa. Commw. Page 19]

Hoskins Taxi Service, Inc. (Petitioner) appeals from an order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility

[ 87 Pa. Commw. Page 20]

Commission (Commission) which denied reconsideration of an order canceling Petitioner's certificate of public convenience.

Petitioner was the holder of a certificate of public convenience to operate a taxi service, granted in May of 1970. On September 11, 1981, the Commission instituted a complaint charging Petitioner with failure to render service to an elderly person. Petitioner failed to file an answer within twenty days, and on December 11, 1981, the Commission sustained the complaint and imposed a fine of $250.00. On April 22, 1982, the Commission issued an order to show cause why Petitioner's certificate should not be revoked or suspended, based on Petitioner's failure to answer the previous complaint, or pay the fine imposed. After no timely response was received, the Commission entered an order canceling Petitioner's certificate of public convenience on August 13, 1982. Petitioner did not appeal this order.

On October 22, 1982, Petitioner filed a petition for reconsideration with the Commission, alleging that the violations committed were the result of the actions of one Richard Koway, who had assumed control of the corporation in 1977 under a conditional sales agreement involving a transfer of stock between Koway and William Hoskins. It was alleged that Koway defaulted on his agreement with Hoskins, refusing to return control of the corporation while falsely advising Hoskins that the fines against the corporation had been paid. Hoskins regained control of the corporation, but did not learn that its certificate had been cancelled until October 7, 1982.

The Commission denied the petition for reconsideration on the grounds that Petitioner was a habitual violator of the Public Utility Code*fn1 and regulations,

[ 87 Pa. Commw. Page 21]

    and that Richard Koway's control of the corporation was not a reasonable excuse for the violations. The Commission found that Koway's control was the result of an unapproved transfer of assets in ...


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.