AEP Texas Commercial & Industrial Retail Ltd. Partnership v. Public Utility Commission
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BOB PEMBERTON, Justice.
The principal issue presented in this appeal is whether the Public Utility Commission (PUC or Commission) reasonably construed chapter 39 of the Utilities Code and its own rules in determining that the proposed sharing of a common “name, trademark, brand, or logo” by an electric transmission and distribution utility and its competitive retail affiliate would amount to prohibited preferential “joint promotion” or “joint advertising” by those entities.1 *893On this record, we conclude that it did. We also reject constitutional free-speech challenges to that…
2Cases cited59 opinions
- Cantwell v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of AustinTexas Supreme Court · 2000
- City of Rockwall v. HughesTexas Supreme Court · 2008
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Employees Retirement System of Texas v. Cynthia A. GarciaCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2014
- State v. Valerie Saxion, Inc. and Valerie Saxion, Individually, Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)2014
- R.E. Janes Gravel Company v. the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality , It's Executive Director, Richard A. Hyde, It's Commissioners Bryan Shaw and Toby Baker, and the City of Lubbock, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2016
- State Farm Lloyds v. RathgeberCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2014
- Comed Medical Systems, Co., Ltd. D/B/A GEMSS Medical and GEMSS North America Inc., F/K/A GEMSS USA Inc. v. AADCO Imaging, LLC and AADCO Medical Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2015
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.