Legal Opinion · Dissent

U S West Communications, Inc. v. City of Longmont

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided November 10, 1997No. 96SC75Published

1DissentJustice Kourlis

Because I view the ordinance as intruding upon matters reserved to the jurisdiction and expertise of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), I respectfully dissent. Tariffs setting utility rates and allocating utility costs have historically been afforded the status of state law. The majority calls that history into question.

A

The regulation of public utilities is a matter of mixed state and local concern. U S West Communications, Inc. v. City of Longmont, 924 P.2d 1071 (Colo.App.1995).

The state-wide component of interest in the regulation of utilities is reflected first in the Colorado…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Maislin Industries, U. S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
  2. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. MaxwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
  3. Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. ThornburgSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. City and County of Denver v. StateSupreme Court of Colorado · 1990
  5. Regional Transportation District v. VossSupreme Court of Colorado · 1995

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API