Tampa Electric Co. v. Watson, (1941)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 4
Judges: BUFORD, J.
Attorneys: Knight Thompson, Peter O. Knight, C. Fred Thompson, Cook Harris, Barrett, McGlothlin Dew, John D. Harris, H.L. McGlothlin, for Petitioner;
Charles F. Blake, Maybry, Reaves, Carlton White, O.K. Reaves and Morris E. White, for Appellees.
Filed: Apr. 22, 1941
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: We concur in most that is said in opinion prepared by Mr. Justice WHITFIELD in this case but, after careful consideration, we cannot concur in the conclusions and judgments reached and entered. As we construe such conclusions and judgments, the effect will be to reverse the orders appealed from only to the extent that such orders struck from the bill of complaint allegations challenging the method used by the Utility Board in determining the proportion to be credited to the utility here under co
Summary: We concur in most that is said in opinion prepared by Mr. Justice WHITFIELD in this case but, after careful consideration, we cannot concur in the conclusions and judgments reached and entered. As we construe such conclusions and judgments, the effect will be to reverse the orders appealed from only to the extent that such orders struck from the bill of complaint allegations challenging the method used by the Utility Board in determining the proportion to be credited to the utility here under con..
More
I concur in the views of Mr. Justice WHITFIELD but I think the properties of petitioner should be evaluated on the prudent investment rule."
BROWN, C. J., and WHITFIELD, J., concur.
Source: CourtListener
