New York Telephone Co. v. Prendergast
District Court, S.D. New York
1Per curiam
One issue, if not the major issue, raised by the bill of complaint herein, is that the rates established by the orders complained of, not only do not in fact permit a fair return upon the value of plaintiff’s property used in the regulated service, but that said orders “were not intended” to permit such a return. Into the question of intent we need not enter at present, for the motion at bar only requires answer to the query whether the rates establishd by order of the principal defendant, are now yielding and have for a reasonable test period yielded an unfair and confiscatory rate of return…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- The Minnesota Rate CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Monroe Gaslight & Fuel Co. v. Michigan Public Utilities CommissionDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1923
3Cited by25 opinions
- McCardle v. Indianapolis Water Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- United Rs. & Elec. Co. of Baltimore v. WestSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- State Ex Rel. Pac. T. T. Co. v. D.P.S.Washington Supreme Court · 1943
- State ex rel. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Department of Public ServiceWashington Supreme Court · 1943
- Michigan Public Utilities Commission v. Michigan State Telephone Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1924
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.