Legal Opinion

Capital Water Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided June 6, 1925PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTaylor, J.

— Respondent Koelseh moves to dismiss the appeal upon two grounds: first, that the appeal is from an interlocutory order of the Public Utilities Commission and not the final order thereof in the case before it, and that said interlocutory order is not appealable, and, second, that the Commission was without authority or jurisdiction to entertain appellant’s application to fix rates, tolls and charges, for the reason that appellant is an irrigation company and not a public utility. As the motion on the first ground is well founded, it will be unnecessary to pass upon the second.

The pleadings…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Evans State Bank v. SkeenIdaho Supreme Court · 1917
  2. Weiser Irrigation District v. Middle Valley Irrigating Ditch Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Williams v. Planters & Mechanics' National BankTexas Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Murray v. Public Utilities CommissionIdaho Supreme Court · 1915
  5. Townsend v. DriverCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Capital Water Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionIdaho Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Application of Lewiston Grain GrowersIdaho Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Aumock v. KilbornIdaho Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Honolulu R.T. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1936
  5. In re the Establishment of Rate BaseHawaii Supreme Court · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API