Legal Opinion

Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided January 11, 1989No. 87-1160PublishedCited by 247 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Rehnquist

Pennsylvania law required that rates for electricity be fixed without consideration of a utility’s expenditures for electrical generating facilities which were planned but never built, even though the expenditures were prudent and reasonable when made. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that such a law did not take the utilities’ property in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We agree with that conclusion, and hold that a *302state scheme of utility regulation does not “take” property simply because it disallows recovery of capital investments that are not…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Michigan Railway Co. v. SwanSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
  3. Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. CohnSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  4. Permian Basin Area Rate CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  5. Smyth v. AmesSupreme Court of the United States · 1898

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

3Cited by247 opinions

  1. Asarco Inc. v. KadishSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. United States v. Sperry Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Calfarm Insurance v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  5. Mark G. Epstein Samuel C. Arsers, on Behalf of Themselves & All Others Similarly Situated v. Washington Energy Co. James A. ThorpeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996

242 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