Stay of order — Notice.
No court of this state shall enjoin or restrain the enforcement of any order of the commission or stay the operation thereof, unless the applicant for such writ shall give three (3) days’ notice of said application to all adverse parties and to the commission. On the hearing of such application, the applicant shall present to the court a transcript of the proceedings had before the commission, including the evidence, and such transcript shall be considered by the court in determining the applicant’s right to an injunction, restraining order or other order suspending or staying the operation of the order or decision of the commission, and if an injunction, restraining order or other order suspends or stays the order of the commission as issued, such order shall contain a specific finding based upon the evidence submitted to the court and identified by reference thereto that great and irreparable damage would result to the petitioner and specifying the nature of the damage.
Notes of Decisions
Utah Power & Light Co. v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 685 P.2d 276 (Idaho 1984).
· cites it 16× “UP & L contends that the stay and bond procedures provided by the Public Utilities Laws, I.C. §§ 61-633 through 61-638, [2] do *279 not provide the exclusive means for obtaining monetary relief from PUC orders denying public utilities' requested rate increases.”
Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Jones, 280 P.2d 1067 (Idaho 1955).
· cites it 6× “” The company as a condition precedent to the issuance of the interlocutory injunction May 25, 1953, presented to the district court a transcript of the proceedings theretofore had before the commission, including the evidence, for the court’s consideration in determining the…”
Joy v. Winstead, 215 P.2d 291 (Idaho 1950).
· cites it 3× “, the full increases initially sought; the Court retaining jurisdiction to make such further orders as might appear appropriate, and: “(4) It is further ordered that the permanent injunction, if and when issued, will contain a provision stating that neither said permanent…”
Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Jones, 267 P.2d 634 (Idaho 1954).
· cites it 4× “Section 61-633, I.C., expressly requires the proceedings before the Commission to be introduced in evidence; therefore, they were properly admitted.”
Rosebud Enter., Inc. v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 917 P.2d 790 (Idaho 1996).
· cites it 10× “APPEAL IS MOOT DUE TO FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH I.C. §§ 61-633 & 61-634 If a party seeks to suspend the operation of an IPUC order, that party must comply with the statutory requirements set forth by the legislature.”
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.