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.

YELLOW CAB COMPANY PITTSBURGH v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION (11/26/85)

decided: November 26, 1985.

YELLOW CAB COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PETITIONER
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in the case of Skyline Motors Air Cargo, Inc., Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and Yellow Cab of Pittsburgh v. Amram Enterprises, Ltd., Nos. A-00100531C821, A-00100531C822 and A-00100531C825, dated June 28, 1984.

COUNSEL

Thomas M. Fallert, with him, Richard S. Dorfzaun, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., for petitioner.

Robert Knickerbocker Smith, Jr., Assistant Counsel, with him, Kenneth E. Nicely, Deputy Chief Counsel, and Charles F. Hoffman, Chief Counsel, for respondent.

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

Author: Doyle

[ 93 Pa. Commw. Page 182]

Petitioner, Yellow Cab Company of Pittsburgh (Yellow Cab), appeals to this Court from an order of the Respondent, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (P.U.C.), which dismissed three consolidated complaints against Amram Enterprises, Ltd. (Amram) for lack of jurisdiction.

This matter comes to us after rather lengthy and complex proceedings before the P.U.C. Although the factual development is not complex, a detailed history of the proceedings may facilitate an understanding of the case.

On May 14, 1982, Skyline Motors Air Cargo, Inc. (Skyline) filed a complaint with the P.U.C. alleging

[ 93 Pa. Commw. Page 183]

    that Amram had violated Section 1102 of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa. C.S. ยง 1102, by transporting delayed or misrouted baggage from the Greater Pittsburgh International Airport to points which were wholly within the state but which were nevertheless territories other than those authorized by its certificate of public convenience. On June 23, 1982, the P.U.C. filed a complaint on its own motion, making the same allegations. A combined hearing on these complaints was held before Administrative Law Judge (A.L.J.) Nemec on October 1, 1982. On February 2, 1983, A.L.J. Nemec issued his initial decision sustaining the complaints. Amram was ordered to cease and desist from its illegal practices and was fined $1,050.00. Exceptions were filed by both Amram and the P.U.C., the latter's directed solely to the amount of the fine imposed. On April 5, 1983, A.L.J. Nemec issued a ruling sustaining the P.U.C.'s exceptions and raising the fine against Amram to $4,200.00. Amram's exceptions were dismissed in their entirety, and on April 19, 1983, Amram appealed to the P.U.C. from the ruling on exceptions. On June 7, 1983, the P.U.C. entered an order adopting the ruling of the A.L.J.

While these proceedings were taking place, on October 7, 1982, a date subsequent to the consolidated hearing on the above described complaints, but prior to any decision by the A.L.J., Yellow Cab also filed a complaint against Amram alleging similar violations of the Public Utility Code. Amram answered this complaint and filed new matter requesting consolidation with the prior complaints of Skyline and the P.U.C. for purposes of briefing and argument. Yellow Cab agreed to the consolidation of issues but requested a separate hearing. A hearing was held on January 27, 1983, and an initial decision was issued by A.L.J. Nemec on May 5, 1983, again ordering

[ 93 Pa. Commw. Page 184]

Amram to cease and desist from further violations. No exceptions were filed and on June 13, 1983, this initial decision ...


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.