Gearhart v. Public Utility Commission
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1DissentSchuman, P. J.
I agree with much of the majority’s discussion. My disagreement with the ultimate disposition of the majority stems from my view that the methodology that the PUC adopted to determine whether plaintiffs had been damaged and the nature of any remedy that the PUC could provide went beyond the scope of the remands on the previous judicial reviews.
As the majority has noted, rather than simply examining the impact on the pre-October 2000 rates of including Trojan in the rate base, the PUC concluded that it had the authority on remand to re-evaluate the pre-October 2000 rates to make substantial…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Springfield Education Ass'n v. Springfield School District No. 19Oregon Supreme Court · 1980
- Duquesne Light Co. v. BaraschSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Valley & Siletz Railroad v. FlaggOregon Supreme Court · 1952
- Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co. v. KatzCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.