As the main document suggests, the California Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeal do not frequently issue written opinions reviewing decisions of the Commission. Review is limited pursuant to the discretionary writ procedures established by Section 1756.
Continue reading “APPENDIX: Overview of Case Law Construing Section 1759 of the Public Utilities Code“
Prior to 1995, the two cases most frequently cited as delineating the scope of Section 1759 were Waters v. Pacific Bell, 12 Cal. 3d 1, 114 Cal. Rptr. 753 (1974) and its predicate, People v. Superior Court (Dyke Water Company, Real Party In Interest), 62 Cal. 2d 515, 42 Cal. Rpt. 849 (1965) (Dyke Water).
Continue reading “People v. Superior Court (Dyke Water) & Waters v. Pacific Bell“
Twenty-two years after the Waters case was decided, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Superior Court (Martin Covalt, Real Party In Interest), 13 Cal. 4th 893, 55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 724 (1996).
Continue reading “Covalt and Progeny: Covalt“
In the late 1990s, the water industry pursued a well conceived and soundly executed plan to “Covalt” the water industry. Its intent was to insulate water utilities from suits for damages related to water quality just as Covalt protected electric utilities from suits by those seeking damages related to EMFs.
Continue reading “Covalt and Progeny: Hartwell“
In late 2003, almost two years after Hartwell, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in People ex rel Orloff v. Pacific Bell, 31 Cal. 4th 1132; 7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 315; 2003 Cal. LEXIS 9459 (2003) (“Orloff”).
Continue reading “Orloff and the Application of Section 1759 To Civil Enforcement Actions”
2 Cal. App. 5th 730; 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 730 (August 31, 2016)
Continue reading “1. California Public Utilities Commission v. Superior Court, Michael Aguirre, Real; Party In Interest (“Aguirre”)“
244 Cal. App. 4th 143; 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS (January 25, 2016) 46
Continue reading “2. Lefebvre v. Southern California Edison“
239 Cal. App. 4th, 1303, 215 Cal. App. LEXIS 755 (“Pegastaff II”)
Continue reading “3. Pegastaff v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company“
Davis v. Southern California Edison
Continue reading “4. Davis v. Southern California Edison“
236 Cal. App.4th 374 (2015), 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 359 (“Pegastaff I”)
Continue reading “5. Pegastaff v. CPUC“
234 Cal. App. 4th 123 (2015), 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 119
Continue reading “6. Wilson v. Southern California Edison“
230 Cal. App. 4th 567; (October 10, 2014) 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 909
Continue reading “7. Guerrrero v. PG&E“
226 Cal. App. 4th 1096, (June 4, 2014); 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 487
Continue reading “8. Disenhouse v. Peevey“
224 Cal. App.4th 309; 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 199 (February 28, 2014)
Continue reading “9. Rivera Mata v. PG&E“
217 Cal. App. 4th 218, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 478 (June 17, 2013)
Continue reading “10. Southern California Edison v. City of Victorville“
205 Cal App 4th 841; 2012 Cal App LEXIS 514 (April 30, 2012)
Continue reading “11. Elder v. Pacific Bell“
154 Cal. App. 4th 659, 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 1405 (2007)
Continue reading “12. In re Groundwater Cases“
188 Cal. App. 4th 840; 2010 Cal App. LEXIS 1650 (September 22, 2010)
Continue reading “13. City of Los Angeles v. Tesoro Refining“
165 Cal. App. 4th 345 2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 1167 (July 28, 2008)
Continue reading “14. Koponen v. PG&E“
154 Cal. App. 4th 659, 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 1405 (2007)
Continue reading “15. In re Groundwater Cases“
142 Cal. App. 4th 541, 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1316 (2006)
Continue reading “16. Anchor Lighting v. Southern California Edison“
132 Cal. App. 4th 725, 2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1418 (2005)
Continue reading “17. Wise66 v. PG&E“
119 Cal. App. 4th 838, 2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 967 (2004)
Continue reading “18. City of Anaheim v. Pacific Bell“