Legal Opinion

Pabst Corp. v. Railroad Commission

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 8, 1929PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFritz, J.

Plaintiffs’ principal contentions are that the rate schedule permits the city to earn an excessive return on the reasonable valuation of its water plant, and that the rate is inequitable, unreasonable, and unjustly discriminatory against large users of water.

The respective functions and powers of the Railroad Commission and of the courts, in relation to the establishment of rates for public utility service, were thoroughly considered and well defined in Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. v. Railroad Comm. 136 Wis. 146, 116 N. W. 905, and Waukesha Gas & E. Co. v. Railroad Comm. 181 Wis.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. McCardle v. Indianapolis Water Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. v. Railroad Commission of WisconsinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
  3. St. Louis & O'Fallon Railway Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
  4. Waukesha Gas & Electric Co. v. Railroad CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
  5. Waukesha Gas & Electric Co. v. Railroad CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. City of Milwaukee v. City of West AllisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Shawnee Hills Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Rural Water District No. 6Supreme Court of Kansas · 1975
  3. City of Milwaukee v. Railroad CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  4. City of Bangor v. Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1960
  5. Wisconsin Hydro-Electric Co. v. Railroad CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API