Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Moore Energy Resources, Inc. v. Public Service Commission
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided November 8, 2001No. 00-AA-429Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGlickman, Associate Judge
Assuming that the present challenge to PEPCO’s asset sale has not become moot (as the sale was not stayed and has already taken place),1 I join the opinion of the majority except for Part III.B. In that Part, which addresses Moore Energy’s argument that the Public Service Commission erroneously disregarded the requirements of the federal Small Business Act (the “SBA”), I think that the majority goes astray and oversteps the proper limits on our review of Commission decisions.
Moore Energy contends on appeal that the Commission should not have approved the settlement for the sale of PEPCO’s…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Goodman v. District of Columbia Rental Housing CommissionDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- Jordan v. Public Service CommissionDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
- Office of People's Counsel v. Public Service CommissionDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- Jewell v. District of Columbia Police & Firefighters Retirement & Relief BoardDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1999
- Bell Atlantic-Washington, D.C., Inc. v. Public Service CommissionDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995