Pinger v. Leach

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that the lack of ambiguity in a statute “rules out the need to rely on legislative history in its interpretation”
• describing allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC) method of cost recovery
• rejecting the public utility’s assertion that the statute’s use of the term “construction work in progress” assumes a technical accounting definition of that phrase as “the total of the balances of work orders for electric plant in process of construction” (quotations omitted)
• no need to rely on legislative history for statutory interpretation in absence of ambiguous language
• commission may not adjust rate of return to permit recovery of lost investment, as distinguished from reflecting risk of such loss in setting rates

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).