Murray v. Public Utilities Commission
Idaho Supreme Court
Original application in this court for a writ of review of an order of the Publie Utilities Commission fixing certain rates and ordering the extension and enlargement of petitioner’s plant. In the leading ease of Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 18 Sup. Ct. 418, 42 L.'ed. 819, the rule was established by the supreme court of the United States that a public utility is entitled to earn a fair return upon the fair value of the property which it employs in the public service.
Read the full summary
Original application in this court for a writ of review of an order of the Publie Utilities Commission fixing certain rates and ordering the extension and enlargement of petitioner’s plant. In the leading ease of Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 18 Sup. Ct. 418, 42 L.'ed. 819, the rule was established by the supreme court of the United States that a public utility is entitled to earn a fair return upon the fair value of the property which it employs in the public service. The trend of the later decisions, as well as the weightier reasoning, is in favor of allowing the item of value as a “going…
1Opinion of the Court
MCCARTHY, District Judge.
— The petitioner, James A. Murray, as the Pocatello Water Company, made application in June, 1913, to the Public Utilities Commission of the state of Idaho, for an increase of rates to be charged for water supplied to the city of Pocatello and its inhabitants. 'Upon the hearing the city of Pocatello was permitted to intervene and appeared to contest the application. Hearings were had before the commission at Pocatello and Boise, and a considerable amount of testimony was taken, which was transcribed for the use of the commission, and the same is now on file in this…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Smyth v. AmesSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. North Dakota Ex Rel. McCueSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Washington Ex Rel. Oregon Railroad & Navigation Co. v. FairchildSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Idaho Power & Light Co. v. BlomquistIdaho Supreme Court · 1914
- Hard v. Boise City Irrigation & Land Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1904
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- American Falls Reservoir District No. 2 v. Idaho Department of Water ResourcesIdaho Supreme Court · 2007
- Utah Power & Light Co. v. Public Service CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1944
- Neil v. Public Utilities CommissionIdaho Supreme Court · 1919
- Mountain View Rural Telephone Co. v. Interstate Telephone Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1935
- Boise Artesian Water Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionIdaho Supreme Court · 1925
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.