Legal Opinion
Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Public Service Commission
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided April 12, 1978No. 20662Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partNess, Justice
(concurring and dissenting) :
*605I concur in that portion of the majority opinion as applies to “Property Held for Future Use,” “Wage Adjustment,” and “Cost of Short Term Debt.” I dissent as to “Fair Rate of Return,” and would reverse the trial court and remand to the Commission to determine this.
A regulatory body, such as the Public Service Commission, is bound by certain well established legal principles in discharging its duties in rate regulation. These principles have been developed from the relevant statutes and constitutional provisions and the cases interpreting them. Code of Laws of…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Bluefield Water Works & Improvement Co. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- State ex rel. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Service Commission of MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- West Ohio Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. v. South Carolina Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1972
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.