Legal Opinion

People Ex Rel. Orloff v. Pacific Bell

California Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 2003No. S099131PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

GEORGE, C. J.

Public Utilities Code section 1759 (hereafter section 1759) provides that only this court and the Court of Appeal possess jurisdiction to review decisions of the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) or “to enjoin, restrain, or interfere with” the PUC in the performance of its duties. Thus, an action filed in superior court against a public utility subject to the jurisdiction of the PUC can be precluded by section 1759, where the action would “interfere with” the authority of the PUC. Here, several district attorneys filed a civil action in superior court, alleging…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Waters v. Pacific Telephone Co.California Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Cellular Plus, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
  4. Hartwell Corporation v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Truck Owners & Shippers, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. State v. Altus Finance, S.A.California Supreme Court · 2005
  2. In Re Groundwater CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  3. Coppola v. SmithDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2013
  4. Kairy v. SuperShuttle InternationalCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
  5. Elder v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co.California Court of Appeal · 2012

22 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