NEXT
Sign in to follow

The Legal Intelligencer

Lehigh Valley Rail Mgmt. LLC v. Cnty. of Northampton Revenue Appeals Bd., PICS Case No. 15-1715 (Pa. Commw. Nov. 10, 2015) Leavitt, J. (17 pages).

By | November 24, 2015
A railroad company's intermodal facility was exempt from local property taxation under PURTA, where the facility served the same function as a switching yard, which had historically been held to be integral to railroad operations. The order of the trial court was reversed and remanded.
3 minute read

Litigation Daily

Don't Want a 150-Foot Cell Tower Next Door? Too Bad

On the list of things homeowners don't want, a giant new cell tower next door has got to be near the top. But if you live in Connecticut, New York or Vermont, there may not be much you can do about it, not if there's a gap in cell phone coverage in your area.
3 minute read

The Legal Intelligencer

McCloskey v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n, PICS Case No. 15-1680 (Pa. Commw. Nov. 3, 2015) McGinley, J. (19 pages).

By | November 17, 2015
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission properly approved gas utility's petition for approval of a distribution system improvement charge to recover the costs associated with distribution system improvement projects. Affirmed.
3 minute read

The Legal Intelligencer

Greencastle Area Franklin Cnty. Water Auth. v. Young, PICS Case No. 15-1674 (Pa. Commw. Oct. 23, 2015) Colins, J. (12 pages).

By | November 17, 2015
Property owners were exempt from township ordinance mandate to connect to public water system because they met all three criteria for exemption from mandatory connection under the Township Code.
4 minute read

The Recorder

Cab Operator Takes Aim at PUC, Uber

A Southern California taxi company complains the agency is allowing Uber to play by a different set of rules.
2 minute read

The Legal Intelligencer

PPL Elec. Utils. Corp. v. City of Lancaster, PICS Case No. 15-1610 (Pa. Commw. Oct. 15, 2015) McCullough (37 pages).

By | November 03, 2015
Court granted utility's application for summary relief as to §§ 263B-3, 263B-4(6) and 263D-1 of a city ordinance enacted to manage the city's right of way and public utility use of the right of way because those sections were preempted by code and invalid and city was enjoined from enforcing them but §263B-5, imposing an annual maintenance fee, was not a public utility regulation and was not preempted. Summary relief granted.
4 minute read

The Legal Intelligencer

UGI Util. Inc. v. City of Lancaster, PICS Case No. 15-1611 (Pa. Commw. Oct. 15, 2015) McCullough J. (15 pages).

By | November 03, 2015
Court granted utility's application for summary relief as to §§ 263B-2, 263B-3, and 263B-4(9) of a city ordinance enacted to manage the city's right of way and public utility use of the right of way because those sections were preempted by code and invalid and city was enjoined from enforcing them but §263B-5, imposing an annual maintenance fee, was not a public utility regulation and was not preempted.
3 minute read

The Legal Intelligencer

GSP Mgmt. Co. v. Duncansville Mun. Auth., PICS Case No. 15-1601 (Pa. Commw. Oct. 19, 2015) Brobson, J. (15 pages).

By | November 03, 2015
In this case of first impression, the Commonwealth Court held that a customer may challenge its sewer bills by establishing that a substantial part of the metered water entering the property did not reach the sewage system.
3 minute read

The Legal Intelligencer

Metro. Edison Co. v. City of Reading, PICS Case No. 15-1609 (Pa. Commw. Oct. 15, 2015) Brobson, J. (8 pages).

By | November 03, 2015
Trial court erred in holding city liable in negligence in case brought by owner of electrical duct bank damaged during city excavation to repair sewer because the exception to immunity in §8542(b)(5) of the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act did not apply where the dangerous condition derived from the conduct of city's employees in removing soil from beneath the duct bank. Reversed.
2 minute read

The Legal Intelligencer

UGI Util. Inc. v. City of Lancaster, PICS Case No. 15-1611 (Pa. Commw. Oct. 15, 2015) McCullough J. (15 pages).

By | November 03, 2015
Court granted utility's application for summary relief as to §§ 263B-2, 263B-3, and 263B-4(9) of a city ordinance enacted to manage the city's right of way and public utility use of the right of way because those sections were preempted by code and invalid and city was enjoined from enforcing them but §263B-5, imposing an annual maintenance fee, was not a public utility regulation and was not preempted. Summary relief granted.
3 minute read

TRENDING STORIES

Law Pro Logo

Featured Firms

Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.

(470) 294-1674

Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone

(857) 444-6468

Smith & Hassler

(713) 739-1250

More from ALM

More from ALM

Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.

Resources

  • AI-Powered Deposition and Medical Record Summaries: Low Risk, High Reward

    Brought to you by Parrot

    Download Now

  • Aligning Client Needs with Lawyer Growth and Profitability

    Brought to you by BigHand

    Download Now

  • Technology to Make E-Discovery Smarter, Not Harder

    Brought to you by Nuix

    Download Now

  • Does Generative AI Have the Power to Transform Legal Services?

    Brought to you by HaystackID

    Download Now