Pine Tree Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the utility commission had properly \relied on average schedules as a proxy to determine Pine Tree's interstate cost and did not attempt to effect a flow-through of gains from Pine Tree's interstate activities to subsidize its intrastate rates\
• concluding that the utility commis sion had properly “relied on average schedules as a proxy to determine Pine Tree’s interstate costs and did not attempt to effect a flow-through of gains from Pine Tree’s interstate activities to subsidize its intrastate rates”
• explaining that “some state regulators simply subtract these [average-schedule] interstate costs from the company’s total costs and treat the residuum as intrastate costs”
• explaining that \some state regulators simply subtract these [average-schedule] interstate costs from the company's total costs and treat the residuum as intrastate costs\
• describing the Commission’s opening of a section 1303 investigation after the filing of a twelve-person complaint based on the utility’s general rates, revenues, and management policies
• “We are particularly reluctant to substitute our judgment for that of the [C]ommission because of the institutional deference we pay to its expertise; we are not a super-commission.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).