Legal Opinion

Alaska Public Utilities Commission v. Municipality of Anchorage

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided September 8, 1995No. S-6452PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

COMPTON, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

Anchorage Telephone Utility (ATU) charged rates for services not approved by the Alaska Public Utilities Commission (APUC). APUC ordered a refund of approximately half of these revenues. On appeal the superior court, sitting as an intermediate court of appeals, reversed and remanded the case to APUC. In this petition for review, APUC argues that it has implied authority to order such a refund. ATU argues that no authority exists; alternatively, it argues that if such authority exists, a refund may only be ordered for that portion of the rates found…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Pipe Line Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Peoples Natural Gas Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
  3. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Public Service CommissionNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
  4. Sonneman v. HickelAlaska Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Far North Sanitation, Inc. v. Alaska Public Utilities CommissionAlaska Supreme Court · 1992

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Matanuska Electric Ass'n v. Chugach Electric Ass'nAlaska Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Chugach Electric Ass'n v. Regulatory CommissionAlaska Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Alaska Exchange Carriers Ass'n v. Regulatory CommissionAlaska Supreme Court · 2011
  4. Alaskan Crude Corporation v. State, Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation CommissionAlaska Supreme Court · 2013
  5. Alaska Exchange Carriers Ass'n v. Regulatory CommissionAlaska Supreme Court · 2011

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

Powered by the Exa API