# Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · March 14, 2005 · 869 A.2d 1144

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701038

## Case

- **Full name:** Irwin A. POPOWSKY, Consumer Advocate, Petitioner v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Respondent
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 14, 2005
- **Citations:** 869 A.2d 1144; 2005 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 137
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Colins
- **Judges:** Colins, McGinley, Smith-Ribner, Leadbetter, Jubelirer, Simpson, Leavitt
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701038

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining maxim expressio unius est ex-clusio alteñus or, the inclusion of a specific matter in a statutory provision implies the exclusion of others

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion by
President Judge COLINS.
I wish to indicate that I join fully in the dissenting opinion of Judge Simpson.
*1161 Further, I wish to state my belief that the majority is substituting its judgment for that of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC), as well as engaging in unauthorized fact finding. As indicated by Judge Simpson, the plain language of the “general rule” mandates an affirmance of the PUC’s action.
Judge SIMPSON joins in this dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701038. Public record. Not legal advice.