Petition of Fryeburg Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtGoodnow, J.
The basis upon which the Commission denied an increase in rates as to New Hampshire consumers was apparently the fact that the new source of supply was needed “to give adequate service to the Fryeburg consumers”; that “no rate increase would have been needed if the Ward Hill Spring had not been developed for the benefit of the Fryeburg customers”; and that since the new source was not required in order to adequately supply the New Hampshire consumers, no “material benefits [accrued] to [them] from this added investment.” It is the company’s position that the Commission’s failure to consider…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Wabash Valley Electric Co. v. YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- American Toll Bridge Co. v. Railroad Commission of CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- City of New Haven v. New Haven Water Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1934
- Leeman v. Public Utilities Commission of D. of C.District Court, District of Columbia · 1952
3Cited by2 opinions
- Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. City of WellingtonTexas Supreme Court · 1956