Citation network
Duquesne Light Co. Vs. Barasch
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 11, 1989
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 299 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Duquesne Light Co. v. BaraschSearch
-
U.S. 299 (1989) Duquesne Light Co. v. BaraschSearch
-
irrespective of whether individual investments are deemed necessary or beneficial in hindsight. It was ruled in FPC v. HopeSearch
-
million. Pennsylvania PUC v. DuquesneSearch
-
Supp.1988). On reconsideration, the PUC affirmed its original rate order. Pennsylvania PUC v. DuquesneSearch
-
million. Pennsylvania PUC v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Cohen v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
The Consumer Advocate then appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and that court reversed. Barasch v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
the parties have not discussed it, we must first inquire into our jurisdiction to decide this case. See Jackson v. AshtonSearch
-
Mansfield C. & L. M. R. Co. v. SwanSearch
-
interpreted to preclude review in this Court as long as any proceedings remain in state court. Radio Station WOW, Inc. v. JohnsonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 120 , 326 U. S. 124 (1945). In Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. CohnSearch
-
as to be confiscatory. Covington & Lexington Turnpike Road Co. v. SandfordSearch
-
FPC v. NaturalSearch
-
FPC v. TexacoSearch
-
rule, is exemplified by the decision in Smyth v. AmesSearch
-
U.S. at 169 U. S. 547 . In theory, the Smyth v. AmesSearch
-
rule. He accepted the Smyth v. AmesSearch
-
devoted to the public utility enterprise by the utilities' owners. Missouri ex rel. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. PublicSearch
-
Page 488 U. S. 310 Forty-five years ago in the landmark case of FPC v. HopeSearch
-
Natural Gas Co., 320 U. S. 591 (1944), this Court abandoned the rule of Smyth v. AmesSearch
-
billion. See Pennsylvania PUC v. DuquesneSearch
-
million ratebase. See Pennsylvania PUC v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
utility rates. And the Pennsylvania PUC is essentially an administrative arm of the legislature. See, e.g., Barasch v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Bluefield Water Works & Improvement Co. v. PublicSearch
-
Commission's (FPC) departure from the individual producer cost-of-service (prudent investment) system. In Wisconsin v. FPCSearch
-
Id. at 373 U. S. 309 (collecting cases). See also FPC v. TexacoSearch
-
the view of the Constitution this Court has taken since Hope Natural Gas, supra. As demonstrated in Wisconsin v. FPCSearch
-
Philadelphia v. PhiladelphiaSearch
-
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. PublicSearch
-
because setting that stream of income was the very object of the rate proceeding. According to Brandeis, the Smyth v. AmesSearch
-
The system avoids the difficult valuation problems encountered under the Smyth v. AmesSearch
-
Pennsylvania PUC v. DuquesneSearch
-
Light Co., 57 Pa.P.U.C. 1, 5, 51 P.U.R.4th 198, 202 (1983). So too in Penn Power's case. See Pennsylvania PUC v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
to set the total rate of return based on these component costs of capital. Ibid. See also Pennsylvania PUC v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
of the capital lost, but does not allow the utility to earn a return on that investment. See, e.g., Pennsylvania PUC v. MetropolitanSearch
-
Philadelphia Electric Co. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
UGI Corp. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Pennsylvania PUC v. PhiladelphiaSearch
-
Pennsylvania PUC v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
been raised on the ground that the legislatures have delegated too much authority and discretion. See Hampton & Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
York R. Co. v. DriscollSearch
-
looks to the consequences a governmental authority produces, rather than the techniques it employs. See, e.g., FPC v. TexacoSearch
-
FPC v. HopeSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Duquesne Light Co. v. BaraschSearch
-
Barasch v. PennsylvaniaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial