Legal Opinion

Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co. v. Eachus

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 9, 1995No. CC 9001-00435, 9002-01260; CA A69043; SC S41285, S41319PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGillette, J.

This is a case involving the question of where jurisdiction lies to hear a challenge to a Public Utility Commission (PUC) rate decision. Under the customary form of PUC proceeding, a complaint is filed with (or by) the PUC, and at least one party is designated as a “defendant,” ORS 756.500(1).1 However, the present PUC proceeding was brought without a formal “complaint,” but instead on the PUC’s “own motion.” ORS 756.515.2 In a proceeding without a “complaint,” the statutes are silent as to whether the regulated party is to be considered a “defendant.” The importance of the “defendant”…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. State v. KingOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  3. State of Oregon v. ElliottOregon Supreme Court · 1954
  4. Anderson v. Heltzel, Pub. Util. Comm.Oregon Supreme Court · 1952
  5. Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co. v. EachusCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Eastern Oregon Mining Ass'n v. Department of Environmental QualityOregon Supreme Court · 2016
  2. Parrott v. Carr Chevrolet, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1998
  3. Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co. v. EachusCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1995
  4. Coalition for Safe Power v. Oregon Public Utility CommissionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
  5. Coalition for Safe Power v. Oregon Public Utility CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1997

1 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