Reserve Mining Co. v. Minnesota 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.

• rejecting an “argument that the cost of providing service should be the single most important consideration in the setting of utility rates”
• “[T]he [commission’s] allocation of revenue responsibility is presumed to be reasonable and just, and the burden is on the appellant[] to show by clear and convincing evidence that the allocation is unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).