green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
3.9 score
“the nipsco decision”
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Public Advocate v. Philadelphia Gas Commission
See Pennsylvania Electric Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 509 Pa. 324 , 502 A.2d 130 (1985), appeal dismissed 476 U.S. 1137 , 106 S.Ct. 2239 , 90 L.Ed.2d 687 (1986); Barasch v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 507 Pa. 561 , 493 A.2d 653 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
See Pennsylvania Electric Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 509 Pa. 324 , 502 A.2d 130 (1985) (Penelec), appeal dismissed, 476 U.S. 1137 , 106 S.Ct. 2239 , 90 L.Ed.2d 687 (1986); Pittsburgh v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 370 Pa. 305, 320-21 , 88 A.2d 59, 66-67 (1952); Penn Sheraton Hotel, supra. Clearly, the costs of providing present utility service are more encompassing.
discussed
Cited "see"
South Eastern Indiana Natural Gas Co. v. Ingram
(2×)
See Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Citizens Action Coalition (1989), Ind., 548 N.E.2d 153, 158 , cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1137 , 106 S.Ct. 2239 , 90 L.Ed.2d 687 . .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wabash Valley Power Ass'n v. Rural Electrification Administration
Is the order or finding the result of considering or failing to consider some factor or element which it is apparent improperly influenced the result or final determination?” Public Svce Comm’n v. City of Indianapolis, 235 Ind. 70 , 131 N.E.2d 308, 312-13 (1956); see also Citizens Action Coalition of Ind., Inc. v. Northern Ind. Public Svce Co., 485 N.E.2d 610, 612 (Ind.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1137 , 106 S.Ct. 2239 , 90 L.Ed.2d 687 (1986).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Public Service Commission of Maryland
v.
Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Maryland
v.
Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Maryland
84-1362.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 27, 1986.
Kirk J. Emge argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner., Jack D. Smith argued the cause for the Federal Communications Commission as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Fried, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Christopher J. Wright, Daniel M. Armstrong, and Jane E. Mago., D. Michael Stroud argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were J. William Sarver, Mark J. Mathis, and Daniel I. Prywes.*
O'Connor, Per Curiam, Powell.
Cited by 8 opinions | Published
Citer courts: S.D. Indiana (1)
Per Curiam.
We vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and remand for further proceedings consist[*446] ent with the opinion in Louisiana Public Service Comm’n v. FCC, ante, p. 355.
It is so ordered.
Justice Powell and Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.