Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Garkane Power Ass'n v. Public Service Commission of Utah
Utah Supreme Court
Decided April 11, 1984No. 17461Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDurham, Justice
I concur in Part I of the Court’s opinion, but dissent from Part II.
It is the contention of CPN and the PSC that Garkane charged unlawful rates because they were in excess of the contract rate filed with the PSC. The defendants reach this conclusion by their interpretation of the Garkane-CPN contract. Garkane asserts that the interpretation of contracts is a judicial function and that the PSC acted beyond its statutory authority. The PSC points to the statement of its general jurisdiction in U.C.A., 1953, § 54-4-1 (Supp. 1983), which provides that the PSC is “vested with power and…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Federal Power Commission v. Sierra Pacific Power Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956
- United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water DivisionSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Arkansas Natural Gas Co. v. Arkansas Railroad CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Gulf States Utilities Company v. Federal Power Commission, Southwest Louisiana Electric Membership Corporation, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1975
- Lemhi Telephone Co. v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1977
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.