Narrative Opinion Summary
In case No. 160, the appeal is dismissed due to lack of a final judgment. Similarly, in case No. 169, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied for the same reason. Relevant case law cited includes Grays Harbor Logging Co. v. Coats-Fordney Co., 243 U.S. 251, and Wick v. Superior Court, 278 U.S. 575. Mr. George Henry Huft represents the appellant in No. 160 and the respondent in No. 169, while Mr. Thomas A. Foulke represents the appellees in No. 160. The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission is represented by Messrs. Claude T. Reno, Harry M. Showalter, Samuel Graff Miller, and Herbert S. Levy.
Legal Issues Addressed
Citation of Relevant Case Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court references prior decisions, including Grays Harbor Logging Co. v. Coats-Fordney Co. and Wick v. Superior Court, to support the conclusion that a final judgment is required for appeal or certiorari.
Reasoning: Relevant case law cited includes Grays Harbor Logging Co. v. Coats-Fordney Co., 243 U.S. 251, and Wick v. Superior Court, 278 U.S. 575.
Denial of Petition for Writ of Certiorarisubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petition for writ of certiorari in case No. 169 is denied because of the absence of a final judgment.
Reasoning: Similarly, in case No. 169, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied for the same reason.
Dismissal for Lack of Final Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appeal in case No. 160 is dismissed because there is no final judgment, which is necessary for appellate review.
Reasoning: In case No. 160, the appeal is dismissed due to lack of a final judgment.