Add to ORKGThe United States Supreme Court has held repeatedly that dealings between intercorporately related companies should be scrutinized closely to prevent any unfair advantage being taken of a subsidiary public utility company by a dominant organization through an exercise of the control inherent in capital stock ownership.1 Yet in an opinion written by Mr. Justice McReynolds in 1923, the court laid down a rule for utilities commissions in rate cases involving intercorporate service-contract charges which, if strictly adhered to, would have sounded the death knell for effective commission regulation
article published in law reviewRegulatory agencies are increasingly adopting ex ante rules to set ma...
The filed rate doctrine is a venerable doctrine of public utility regulation. Federal courts applyin...
In Ohio v. American Express Co. the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that in the case of transaction platfor...
The United States Supreme Court has held repeatedly that dealings between intercorporately related c...
The Supreme Court of the United States has recently decided two important cases relating to the prop...
The United States Supreme Court has recently added one moredecision to the long list of cases on the...
Smyth v. Ames, source of the elusive principle that has pestered courts and public utility commissio...
On September 21, 1990, the First Circuit handed down its decision in Town of Concord, Massachusetts ...
The economic convulsions due to the World War are abundantly reflected in the relations between the ...
The appellee was engaged in the business of selling natural gas. A rival utility entered the field d...
The recurrent problem of how effective a state commission\u27s regulation of a domestic public utili...
In its Keogh decision the Supreme Court held that although the Interstate Commerce Act did not exemp...
Public Utility Valuations and Rates - In comparing the reports of the public utility commissions wit...
The requirement that an antitrust plaintiff show market power in rule of reason cases has an uninspi...
Of interest to students of public utility rate regulation will be the case of Driscoll v. Edison Lig...
article published in law reviewRegulatory agencies are increasingly adopting ex ante rules to set ma...
The filed rate doctrine is a venerable doctrine of public utility regulation. Federal courts applyin...
In Ohio v. American Express Co. the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that in the case of transaction platfor...
The United States Supreme Court has held repeatedly that dealings between intercorporately related c...
The Supreme Court of the United States has recently decided two important cases relating to the prop...
The United States Supreme Court has recently added one moredecision to the long list of cases on the...
Smyth v. Ames, source of the elusive principle that has pestered courts and public utility commissio...
On September 21, 1990, the First Circuit handed down its decision in Town of Concord, Massachusetts ...
The economic convulsions due to the World War are abundantly reflected in the relations between the ...
The appellee was engaged in the business of selling natural gas. A rival utility entered the field d...
The recurrent problem of how effective a state commission\u27s regulation of a domestic public utili...
In its Keogh decision the Supreme Court held that although the Interstate Commerce Act did not exemp...
Public Utility Valuations and Rates - In comparing the reports of the public utility commissions wit...
The requirement that an antitrust plaintiff show market power in rule of reason cases has an uninspi...
Of interest to students of public utility rate regulation will be the case of Driscoll v. Edison Lig...
article published in law reviewRegulatory agencies are increasingly adopting ex ante rules to set ma...
The filed rate doctrine is a venerable doctrine of public utility regulation. Federal courts applyin...
In Ohio v. American Express Co. the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that in the case of transaction platfor...