Cluster 2600271
green
· 70 citation events
across 2 courts.
Showing the 6 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Whether the former avenue should be utilized, the Supreme Court held, is a matter that should be determined, in the first instance, by the PUC[.]” Trojan II, 215 Or App at 374 (footnote omitted).
footnote omitted
green
Gearhart v. Public Utility Commission (2013)
Rather, “the question of the PUC’s authority to engage in retroactive ratemaking or to order a refund needs to be decided by the PUC” Id. at 375 (emphasis in original).
emphasis in original
green
Shriners Hospitals for Children v. Woods (2016)
See Utility Reform Project v. PUC, 215 Or App 360, 376 , 170 P3d 1074 (2007) (after remand, issues may arise differently or not at all); see also Couey v. Atkins, 357 Or 460, 470 , 355 P3d 866 (2015) (to be justiciable, a controversy must involve a present, not hypothetical issue).
after remand, issues may arise differently or not at all
green
Gearhart v. Public Utility Commission (2014)
See Trojan II, 215 Or App at 366-67 . 15 The PUC concluded in PUC Order No. 08-487 that removal of a return on investment would have led to higher rates and that the PUC’s legal error therefore did not “result in unjust and unreasonable rates during the April 1995 through September 2000 period.” The PUC went on to state that those rates “were just and reasonable.” We focus on the total effect of the rate order, rather than the rates themselves, in affirming the PUC.
green
Gearhart v. PUC (2014)
See Trojan II, 215 Or App at 366-67 .
App. 189 , 194, 559 P.2d 891 (1977) ; see also Utility Reform Project v. PUC , 215 Or.