From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

The Narragansett Electric Company v. Harsch

Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Feb 26, 1976
352 A.2d 400 (R.I. 1976)

Opinion

M. P. No. 75-218

February 26, 1976

Edwards & Angell, Knight Edwards, Edward F. Hindle, Deming E. Sherman for petitioner

Julius C. Michaelson, Attorney General, R. Daniel Prentiss, Special Asst. Attorney General, Roberts & Willey Incorporated, Dennis J. Roberts II, for Consumers' Council, for respondents.


The petitioner's motion that the Attorney General be disallowed from filing a brief in the within case is denied without prejudice to raising the issue in its brief and in oral argument.

Counsel for the parties are ordered to discuss in their briefs and oral arguments, in addition to other questions presented, the question of whether the Attorney General represented the public or the Public Utilities Commission and whether or not the Public Utilities Commission is a proper party to this appeal. See Hassell v. Zoning Bd. of Review of E. Providence, 108 R.I. 349, 275 A.2d 646 (1971).


Summaries of

The Narragansett Electric Company v. Harsch

Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Feb 26, 1976
352 A.2d 400 (R.I. 1976)
Case details for

The Narragansett Electric Company v. Harsch

Case Details

Full title:THE NARRAGANSETT ELECTRIC COMPANY v. WILLIAM W. HARSCH et al

Court:Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Date published: Feb 26, 1976

Citations

352 A.2d 400 (R.I. 1976)
116 R.I. 907
1976 R.I. LEXIS 1356

Citing Cases

Narragansett Elec. Co. v. Harsch

I. The Roles of the Attorney General and the Commission At the outset we are confronted with two interrelated…