Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hibbing Taconite Co. v. Minnesota Public Service Commission, 302 N.W.2d 5.
- Petition of Inter-City Gas Corp. 389 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1986
- Petition of Inter-City Gas Corp. 389 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1986
-
In Re Continental Telephone Co. of Minnesota
389 N.W.2d 910
Minn. 1986
We have recognized that the statutory system gives MPUC “the duty as well as the power to set a just and reasonable rate after a full review of evidence and testimony.” (emphasis added); Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. State, 299 Minn. 1
- In Re Continental Telephone Co. of Minnesota, Inc. 358 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
-
In Re Continental Telephone Co. of Minnesota, Inc.
358 N.W.2d 400
Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. State, 299 Minn. 1 , (in both cases the Minnesota Supreme Court considered issues raised by notice of review).
- City of Moorhead v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 343 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 1984
- City of Moorhead v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 343 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 1984
- Minnesota Power & Light Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 342 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 1983
-
Minnesota Power & Light Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
342 N.W.2d 324
Minn. 1983
(hereinafter Hibbing Taconite).
- Reserve Mining Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 334 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1983
- Reserve Mining Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 334 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1983
- Butler Taconite Project v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 332 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 1983
-
Butler Taconite Project v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
332 N.W.2d 649
Minn. 1983
The circumstances giving rise to the construction of Clay Boswell No. 4 and the impact of that construction on MPL’s cash flow and bond rating have been outlined in our earlier decisions
- Minnesota Power & Light Co. v. Minnesota Public Service Commission 310 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 1981
-
Minnesota Power & Light Co. v. Minnesota Public Service Commission
310 N.W.2d 686
Minn. 1981
5 we held the use of the North Central doctrine is impermissible.