Washington Gas Light Co. v. Public Service Commission
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
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
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- West Ohio Gas Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n of OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Jager v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1975
- In Re New England Tel. & Tel. Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1949
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.