Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Washington Gas Light Co. v. Public Service Commission

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided September 10, 1982No. 79-587, 79-740, 79-745 and 79-746Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

HARRIS, Associate Judge,*

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

While I concur in the result reached on many of the issues in this appeal — and in fact authored, but for a number of selective changes, most of those portions of the court’s per curiam opinion with which I do not disagree — I believe the majority is patently wrong in sanctioning the enormously disparate rate design prescribed by the Commission in this proceeding. I also cannot concur in the majority’s affirmance of the “below-the-line” treatment of advertising and certain other administrative expenses. Further, I am convinced…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
  2. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. West Ohio Gas Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n of OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  4. Jager v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1975
  5. In Re New England Tel. & Tel. Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1949

20 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