Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Pennsylvania opinions name it 5 courts 1938–2010 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Railroad Commission v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.green2 sentences2010In Railroad Commission of California v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 302 U.S. 388 , 58 S.Ct. 334 , 82 L.Ed. 319 (1938), the United States Supreme Court explained: The right to a fair and open hearing is one of the rudiments of fair play assured to every litigant by the Federal Constitution as a minimal requirement. 2010In Railroad Commission of California v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 302 U.S. 388 , 58 S.Ct. 334 , 82 L.Ed. 319 (1938), the United States Supreme Court explained: The right to a fair and open hearing is one of the rudiments of fair play assured to every litigant by the Federal Constitution as a minimal requirement. | 1 | 3 |
Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commissiongreen2 sentences1958Such a hearing has been described as an ‘inexorable safeguard.’ ” See also Gonzales v. United States, 348 U. S. 407 (1955); Arndt v. United States, 222 F. 2d 484, 488 (1955); Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, 301 U. S. 292 (1937), requiring notice and a fair and open hearing. 1958Such a hearing has been described as an ‘inexorable safeguard.’ ” See also Gonzales v. United States, 348 U. S. 407 (1955); Arndt v. United States, 222 F. 2d 484, 488 (1955); Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, 301 U. S. 292 (1937), requiring notice and a fair and open hearing. | 1 | 2 |
Wayne Eldon Arndt v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1958Such a hearing has been described as an ‘inexorable safeguard.’ ” See also Gonzales v. United States, 348 U. S. 407 (1955); Arndt v. United States, 222 F. 2d 484, 488 (1955); Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, 301 U. S. 292 (1937), requiring notice and a fair and open hearing. 1958Such a hearing has been described as an ‘inexorable safeguard.’ ” See also Gonzales v. United States, 348 U. S. 407 (1955); Arndt v. United States, 222 F. 2d 484, 488 (1955); Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, 301 U. S. 292 (1937), requiring notice and a fair and open hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Morgan v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1958Morgan v. United States, 298 U. S. 468, 480, 481 ; Interstate Commerce Comm’n v. Louisville & N. R. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Erie Lighting Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
green
2 sentences1958Among the restraints affecting the performance of administrative and quasi-judicial functions is the requirement that the agency so acting shall afford the interested parties a fair and open hearing, that it make findings of fact so that its action may be reviewed by the courts, and that it assign a reason for its action: Erie Lighting Co. v. Pa. P. U. C., 131 Pa. Superior Ct. 190 , 198 A. 901 . 1958Among the restraints affecting the performance of administrative and quasi-judicial functions is the requirement that the agency so acting shall afford the interested parties a fair and open hearing, that it make findings of fact so that its action may be reviewed by the courts, and that it assign a reason for its action: Erie Lighting Co. v. Pa. P. U. C., 131 Pa. Superior Ct. 190 , 198 A. 901 . | 2 | 1938–1958 |
Nelson v. Garland (City of Pgh.)
green
2 sentences1949There must be due notice and an opportunity to be heard, the procedure must be consistent with the essential of a fair trial, and the Commission must act upon evidence and not arbitrarily.” Justice Cardozo, in the Ohio Bell Telephone Company case, discussing the necessity of an open and fair hearing, said (p. 305) : “There can be no compromise on the footing of convenience or expediency, or because of a natural desire to be rid of harassing delay, when that minimal requirement has been neglected or ignored.” (Italics by Judge Hargest.) “ ‘Our President Judge, in Nelson v. Garland et al., 123 P 1949There must be due notice and an opportunity to be heard, the procedure must be consistent with the essential of a fair trial, and the Commission must act upon evidence and not arbitrarily.” Justice Cardozo, in the Ohio Bell Telephone Company case, discussing the necessity of an open and fair hearing, said (p. 305) : “There can be no compromise on the footing of convenience or expediency, or because of a natural desire to be rid of harassing delay, when that minimal requirement has been neglected or ignored.” (Italics by Judge Hargest.) “ ‘Our President Judge, in Nelson v. Garland et al., 123 P | 2 | 1944–1949 |
St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United States
green
1 sentence1958Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United States, 298 U. S. 38, 73 ) of a fair and open hearing be maintained in its integrity. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Gonzales v. United States
green
2 sentences1958Such a hearing has been described as an ‘inexorable safeguard.’ ” See also Gonzales v. United States, 348 U. S. 407 (1955); Arndt v. United States, 222 F. 2d 484, 488 (1955); Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, 301 U. S. 292 (1937), requiring notice and a fair and open hearing. 1958Such a hearing has been described as an ‘inexorable safeguard.’ ” See also Gonzales v. United States, 348 U. S. 407 (1955); Arndt v. United States, 222 F. 2d 484, 488 (1955); Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, 301 U. S. 292 (1937), requiring notice and a fair and open hearing. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Johnstown Water Co. v. P. S. C.
green
2 sentences1938We may add, however, that if the Abington Company has no such authority, the commission’s order is not warranted, as it cannot require a utility to serve in a territory not within the scope of its charter and applicable statutes: Johnstown Water Co. v. P. S. C., 107 Pa. Superior Ct. 540, 542 , 164 A. 101 ; State v. P. S. C. 1938We may add, however, that if the Abington Company has no such authority, the commission’s order is not warranted, as it cannot require a utility to serve in a territory not within the scope of its charter and applicable statutes: Johnstown Water Co. v. P. S. C., 107 Pa. Superior Ct. 540, 542 , 164 A. 101 ; State v. P. S. C. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.