Matters reviewable on appeal — Extent of review — Judgment.
No new or additional evidence may be introduced in the Supreme Court, but the appeal shall be heard on the record of the commission as certified by it. The review on appeal shall not be extended further than to determine whether the commission has regularly pursued its authority, including a determination of whether the order appealed from violates any right of the appellant under the constitution of the United States or of the state of Idaho. Upon the hearing the Supreme Court shall enter judgment, either affirming or setting aside or setting aside in part the order of the commission. In case the order of the commission is set aside or set aside in part, the commission, upon its own motion or upon motion of any of the parties, may alter or amend the order appealed from to meet the objections of the court in the manner prescribed in section 61-624, Idaho Code.
Notes of Decisions
Idaho Fair Share v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 751 P.2d 107 (Idaho 1988).
· cites it 35× “§ 67-5215(g), or I.C. § 61-629. 2. Whether the Commission erred by failing to consider any of Fair Share's legal *109 fees and costs incurred prior to July 1, 1985, the effective date of I.”
Utah Power & Light Co. v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 685 P.2d 276 (Idaho 1984).
· cites it 28× “At the time relevant to this appeal I.C. § 61-629 provided in part: "Upon the hearing the Supreme Court shall enter judgment, either affirming or setting aside the order of the commission.”
Utah Power & Light Co. v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 629 P.2d 678 (Idaho 1981).
· cites it 14× “When the Commission finds that the rates proposed by a public utility for such services are unjust, the Commission must establish *680 just, reasonable or sufficient rates.”
Miles v. Idaho Power Co. Ex Rel. Evans, 778 P.2d 757 (Idaho 1989).
· cites it 4× “See I.C. § 61-629. Requiring Miles to begin this case anew before the IPUC and to then appeal from the decision of the IPUC would waste not only the resources of the judiciary, but also the IPUC's resources.”
Washington Water Power Co. v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 617 P.2d 1242 (Idaho 1980).
· cites it 4× “The scope of appeal from decisions of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission is set forth in I.C. § 61-629 as follows: “The review on appeal shall not be extended further than to determine whether the commission has regularly pursued its authority, including a determination of…”
Citizens Utils. Co. v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 579 P.2d 110 (Idaho 1978).
· cites it 4× “Citizens contends that since the Commission’s order was unlawful, the order must be set aside as provided by I.C. § 61-629. 1 *168 Citizens further contends that the result of setting aside this order is the automatic implementation of the rate increase requested by Citizens in…”
Idaho State Bar Ass'n v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 637 P.2d 1168 (Idaho 1981).
· cites it 4× “I.C. § 61-629, which defines the court’s scope of review on appeals from orders of the Commission, provides: “Matters reviewable on appeal — Extent of review — Judgment.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.