Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
In Re the Application of Diamond State Telephone Co.
Supreme Court of Delaware
Decided April 20, 1955No. 9, 1954Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Wolcott,
Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
The petition for re-argument filed by the Company raises two questions for our consideration, viz., (1) Did the Public Service Commission comply with the provisions of 26 Del. C. Ch. 1, when it fixed a rate base for the company of $22,000,000, and (2) Does the Superior Court have the authority under 26 Del. C. Ch. 1, on appeal from the Public Service Commission, if it finds that the Commission has committed error, to make its *222own findings and enter an order directing the Commission to give effect to those findings?
I concur in the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- United Rs. & Elec. Co. of Baltimore v. WestSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Matter of Petition of Public Service Coordinated TransportSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1950
- East Ohio Gas Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1938
- General Foods Corporation v. BrannanCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1948
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.