In the Matter of Joseph Cahill et al., Respondents,
v.
Public Service Commission et al., Respondents, and New York Telephone Company et al., Appellants.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Argued March 29, 1990.
Decided May 10, 1990.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
John M. Clarke, Gerald M. Oscar, Thomas J. Farrelly, David O. Simon and Laurence H. Tribe, of the Massachusetts Bar, admitted pro hac vice, for New York Telephone Company, appellant.
Stanley W. Widger, Jr., Jeffrey C. Parnell and Kevin G. Martin for Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, appellant.
Richard D. Emery, Mark A. Sirota and Burt Neuborne for Joseph Cahill, respondent.
Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Richard W. Golden, John W. Corwin, Mary Hilgeman and Charlie Donaldson of counsel), respondent pro se.
F. Peter O'Hara and Peter M. Metzger for The Brooklyn Union Gas Company, amicus curiae.
Peter Garam, Elisabeth S. Harding and Larry Carbone for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., amicus curiae.
David F. Smith and Josephine S. Trubek for National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation and another, amici curiae.
James J. Sabella and Brenda F. Szydlo for New York City Mission Society, amicus curiae.
Owen Zuckert, Richard Cherry and Stanley S. Weithorn for United Way of New York City and others, amici curiae.
Sol Neil Corbin, Marc J. Gottridge and Carolyn Schurr for the New York Public Library, amicus curiae.
Miriam Sparrow for New York Blood Center, Inc., amicus curiae.
Alfred M. Hallenbeck for Rochester Institute of Technology, amicus curiae.
Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE and ALEXANDER concur with Judge BELLACOSA; Judge TITONE concurs in a separate opinion; Judge HANCOCK, JR., taking no part.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
BELLACOSA, J.
The policy of the New York Public Service Commission (PSC) authorizing utilities to pass along to ratepayers part of the cost of corporate charitable contributions is challenged on First Amendment grounds under the United States Constitution. We agree with the result in the lower courts on the merits declaring the policy unconstitutional. The order of the Appellate Division should thus be affirmed...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
