§

W.D. Rubright Co. et al. v. Pa. P.U.C

197 Pa. Super. 242 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1962)
W.D. Rubright Co. et al. v. Pa. P.U.C

5 Citing cases

  1. Byerly et al., v. Pa. P.U.C.

    270 A.2d 186 (Pa. 1970)   Cited 13 times

    In transfer of certificate cases the principle has evolved that it is not necessary for the transferor or transferee to show that the certificate under review is necessary for the public convenience. W. D. Rubright Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 197 Pa. Super. 242, 253, 177 A.2d 119 (1962); Paradise v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 184 Pa. Super. 8, 17, 132 A.2d 754 (1957); Modern Transfer Company v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 179 Pa. Super. 46, 52, 115 A.2d 887 (1955); Hostetter v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 160 Pa. Super. 94, 98-99, 49 A.2d 862 (1946). It is presumed that the convenience once found continues until the contrary is shown.

  2. Bennett v. State Corporation Commission

    73 N.M. 126 (N.M. 1963)   Cited 6 times
    Stating that occasional use of certificate authority by a holder with a certificate authorizing non-scheduled service over irregular routes did not constitute dormancy requiring amendment or revocation

    All that is required is that such service be available whenever requested by a shipper. Van Arsdale v. King, supra; W.D. Rubright Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission, 197 Pa. Super. 242, 177 A.2d 119. The Supreme Court of Nebraska adopted a similar test in Application of Neuswanger, 170 Neb. 670, 104 N.W.2d 235, when it said that the carrier must be "fit, willing, and able to perform the service proposed."

  3. Byerly Appeal

    257 A.2d 922 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1969)   Cited 1 times

    Such interpretation is in conformity with the Commission's own Rules and Regulations, General Order 29, Rule 7(c), which reads, "(c) Whenever the Commission has information indicating that any common carrier has permanently discontinued furnishing the service authorized in its certificate, such discontinuance shall be regarded as prima facie evidence that the public necessity upon which the certificate was granted no longer exists." The evidence of abandonment is even more apparent in this case than in W.D. Rubright Co. v. Pennsylvania Public UtilityCommission, 197 Pa. Super. 242, 177 A.2d 119 (1962), in which I dissented on the same grounds. In that case the transferor signed an agreement of transfer one month after he ceased operations, where in this case the transferor conducted no operations for three years prior to the application.

  4. Yellow Cab Co. of Pgh. v. Pa. P.U.C

    431 A.2d 1106 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1981)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that nonuse of a certificate of public convenience does not constitute an abandonment, particularly when compelled by events and circumstances beyond the carrier's control rather than by the carrier's initiative

    While it is conceded that the transferor markedly curtailed its service, such curtailment or even nonuse, especially when compelled by events and circumstances beyond the carrier's control, does not constitute abandonment. See W. D. Rubright Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 197 Pa. Super. 242, 177 A.2d 119 (1962) (authorities collected); Feather v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 41 Pa. Commw. 544, 399 A.2d 829 (1979). Cf. Lawson v. Simonsen, 490 Pa. 509, 417 A.2d 155 (1980).

  5. Morgan Drive Away, Inc. v. P.U.C.

    293 A.2d 895 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1972)   Cited 2 times

    This argument has no merit since abandonment requires proof of intent, and no evidence has been presented to establish intention to abandon. See, W. D. Rubright Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 197 Pa. Super. 242, 177 A.2d 119 (1962). See also, note 3 infra.