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.

MORGAN DRIVE AWAY v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION (08/04/86)

decided: August 4, 1986.

MORGAN DRIVE AWAY, INC., PETITIONER
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, in case of Application of John K. Ryan and George R. Richard, Co-partners, t/d/b/a R.V. Transport, No. A-105465.

COUNSEL

David H. Radcliff, with him, Christian V. Graf, Graf, Knupp & Andrews, P.C., for petitioner.

H. Kirk House, Assistant Counsel, with him, Alfred N. Lowenstein, Deputy Chief Counsel, and Charles F. Hoffman, Chief Counsel, for respondent.

William A. Chestnutt, McNees, Wallace & Nurick, for intervenors, John K. Ryan and George R. Richard.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judges Rogers, Craig, Doyle, Barry Colins and Palladino. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr.

Author: Crumlish

[ 99 Pa. Commw. Page 421]

Morgan Drive Away (Morgan) appeals a Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) order granting the application of R.V. Transport (R.V.) for a certificate of public convenience as a motor common carrier. We affirm.

The certificate authorized tow-away service to transport recreational vehicles and trailers between points in Pennsylvania. Morgan, which holds a certificate to provide transportation services, protests the granting of a certificate to R.V.

[ 99 Pa. Commw. Page 422]

Where, as here, the PUC grants a certificate of public convenience, this Court may not alter its decision absent an error of law, a violation of constitutional rights or a lack of evidence to support its findings. Yellow Page 422} Cab Co. of Pittsburgh v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 50 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 448, 412 A.2d 1385 (1980).

Morgan contends initially that the PUC erred in using revised evidentiary criteria in its decision.*fn1 It argues that R.V. should have been required to prove inadequacy in the existing service.*fn2 We disagree. We have held recently that the PUC exercised proper discretion when

[ 99 Pa. Commw. Page 423]

    it formulated new evidentiary criteria and excised the inadequacy requirement from an applicant's burden of proof. Seaboard Tank Lines, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility ...


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.