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”