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 (04/28/87)

decided: April 28, 1987.

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



Appeals from the Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, in case of Application of Colonial Taxi Co., Inc.; Application for Amendment to Certificate, Docket No. A-00080980, F.2, Am-C.

COUNSEL

Richard S. Dorfzaun, with him, In-grid M. Lundberg, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., for petitioner, The Yellow Cab Company of Pittsburgh.

Jon Hogue, for petitioner, Peoples Cab Company.

H. Kirk House, Assistant Counsel, with him, Michael C. Schnierle, Deputy Chief Counsel, and Charles F. Hoffman, Chief Counsel, for respondent.

John A. Pillar, Pillar and Mulroy, P.C., for intervenor, Colonial Taxi Co., Inc.

Judges MacPhail and Colins, and Senior Judge Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Colins.

Author: Colins

[ 105 Pa. Commw. Page 514]

The Yellow Cab Company of Pittsburgh and Peoples Cab Company (collectively, petitioners) appeal an order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Commission) granting the application of Colonial Taxi Company, Inc. (Colonial) for an amendment to its certificate of public convenience and authorizing Colonial to operate in the City of Pittsburgh (City).

Prior to its application to expand service, Colonial was authorized to serve the South Hills area of Allegheny County and two wards within the City. Protests to Colonial's application to expand service were filed by petitioners*fn1 and the matter proceeded to public hearings

[ 105 Pa. Commw. Page 515]

    before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). In his subsequent decision, the ALJ approved Colonial's application and amended its certificate, authorizing call or demand service in Pittsburgh but restricting service from three downtown hotels, on the basis that Colonial had not demonstrated a need for such service. Exceptions filed on behalf of petitioners and Colonial were denied by the ALJ and all parties appealed to the Commission.

The Commission granted Colonial's application in toto, thereby lifting the prohibition on downtown hotel service imposed by the ALJ. The Commission concluded that Colonial had met its burden of demonstrating public demand for the proposed services and the requisite fitness to perform same, in accordance with the evidentiary criteria promulgated by the Commission and found at 52 Pa. Code ยง 41.14.*fn2 Moreover, the ...


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.