Hansen v. City of San Buenaventura
California Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
BROUSSARD, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I agree with the majority, insofar as they conclude that the City of San Buenaventura is entitled to be compensated for services, facilities or capital which it contributes to the municipal utility and the ratepayers and that in lieu of such compensation the city ratepayers may be charged a lower rate than the noncity ratepayers. However, I cannot agree that the city is entitled to be compensated through discriminatory rates for claimed capital improvements and additions which were in fact financed by the ratepayers both within and without the city or…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
- City of S. Pasadena v. Pasadena Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
- City of Los Angeles v. Public Utilities CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Mechanic Falls Water Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1977
- United Gas Corp. v. Mississippi Public Service CommissionMississippi Supreme Court · 1961
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.