Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch
Supreme Court of the United States
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
- Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Michigan Railway Co. v. SwanSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. CohnSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Permian Basin Area Rate CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Smyth v. AmesSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by247 opinions
- Asarco Inc. v. KadishSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- United States v. Sperry Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Calfarm Insurance v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
- Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- 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.