O R D E R. Based on the foregoing, and the parties having agreed that the above-named child shall be informally adjusted in this matter, without formal adjudication and disposition, the Court hereby ORDERS:
O R D E R. Before the Commission is a special contract between Henry County Water District No. 2 ( Xxxxx District ) and Xxxxxx Brothers Ready Mix Concrete Supply Company, Inc. ( Xxxxxx Brothers ). This agreement required, inter alia, that Xxxxxx Brothers construct approximately $30,000 of system improvements as a condition for receiving water service to a proposed concrete plant in Henry County, Kentucky. Xxxxx District acknowledges that the system improvements were not needed to provide water service to the proposed concrete plant and were not the product of voluntary negotiations. Kentucky law clearly prohibits a utility from imposing conditions for utility service that are not set forth in its filed rate schedules. See KRS 278.160. Our regulations, moreover, prohibit such conduct. Administrative Regulation 807 KAR 5:006, Section 5, provides:
O R D E R. The settlement agreement the Magistrate Judge thought the parties had reached has apparently blown up. After a discussion with the parties on June 26, the Magistrate Judge had been cautiously optimistic that the parties could solve it and in his order concerning that telephone conference (Docket Entry No. 57) he directed the parties to advise him by July 12, 2013, whether they could still resolve the matter. If they could not the defendant was allowed to file a response to the plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint. The parties have not advised the Magistrate Judge that they are able to settle the case and, in fact, the defendant has filed a response in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion to amend (Docket Entry No. 58). Accordingly, it appears that absent the request of the parties there is nothing further that remains to be done by the undersigned and the matter of the amendment is before Magistrate Judge Xxxxxx. It is so ORDERED. s/ Xxx X. Xxxxx XXX X. XXXXX United States Magistrate Judge
O R D E R. Liquor License No. LC0038537 ) NOW, on this 26th day of January, 2016, this matter comes before the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Division, upon the Settlement Agreement filed herein by, among and between the Iowa Department of Public Safety and the above-captioned liquor licensee. A copy of the Settlement Agreement is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit “A”. At issue is a complaint against the licensee for a violation of Iowa Code section 123.49(2)(d)(2) and 185 Iowa Administrative Code section 4.5(5) (infusing), that occurred on the licensed premises. The Administrator FINDS that the Settlement Agreement should be accepted in its entirety. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the two hundred and fifty dollar ($250.00) civil penalty agreed to in the Settlement Agreement shall be paid in full to the “Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Division,” 1918 XX Xxxxxxxx Rd., Ankeny, Iowa 50021, on or before February 17, 2016. Failure to timely pay the civil penalty may result in immediate suspension of liquor license number LC0038537 until the civil penalty is fully paid. DATED this 26th day of January, 2016, Ankeny, Iowa. IOWA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES DIVISION XXXXXXX XXXXXX
O R D E R. The Government of India hereby decides that the following shall be added as Clauses 1.7, 5.2, 6.5 and 6.6 to the “ Schedule to the License Agreement” for DTH Services “1.7: Any change in the equity structure of the Licensee Company as well as amendment to shareholders agreement, wherever applicable, shall only be carried out in consultation and with prior approval of Licensor.”
O R D E R. On May 5, 2003, Jessamine-South Elkhorn Water District (“District”) filed for Commission approval a new or amended WATER USER AGREEMENT (“Agreement”). The Agreement was between the District and the customer and its execution by the landlord/owner and tenant/lessee was necessary as a condition of service. The Agreement stated, “if the CUSTOMER is a Renter, then the Owner of the leased property shall be required to sign this contract before water service is begun and the OWNER shall be bound by all the provisions of the agreement including all charges for service.” The Agreement provides for the signature of the owner, including address and telephone number. The District is unilaterally imposing as a condition for service that the landlord/owner is jointly and severally responsible with tenant/lessee for payment of all charges. This issue is referred to herein as “landlord/tenant liability.” The landlord/tenant liability issue was addressed by the Commission in its decision and Order in Xxxxxx County Water District No. 1, Case No. 9383 (Ky. PSC,
O R D E R. On April 14, 2004, ProNet Communications, Inc. (“ProNet”) and Kentucky ALLTEL, Inc. submitted to the Commission a resale agreement. The agreement was negotiated pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“1996 Act”), 47 U.S.C. Sections 251 and 252. Section 252(e) of the 1996 Act requires the parties to an agreement adopted by negotiation to submit the agreement for approval to the Commission. ProNet asked that the agreement be approved by Order rather than by operation of law. The Commission has reviewed the agreement and finds that no portion of the amendment discriminates against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement. The Commission also finds that the implementation of this agreement is consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity. The Commission, having been otherwise sufficiently advised, HEREBY ORDERS that the agreement is approved. Done at Frankfort, Kentucky, this 21st day of April, 2004. By the Commission
O R D E R. The petitioner has filed original petition u/s 11(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Conduct of Business Regulations (CBR) seeking determination of tariff/power purchase price in respect of the power supplied by Bagasse based Co-generation projects by using coal during non-crushing period in terms of G.O. Rt. No. 43 Energy (Power-II) Department dated 13-03-2014.
O R D E R. AND NOW this day of 20 , the attached agreement entered into by the parties is entered as an ORDER of this court. BY THE COURT:
O R D E R. This 9th day of July 2018, after careful consideration of the parties’ briefs, oral argument, and the record on appeal, it appears that the judgment of the Court of Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons stated in its October 12, 2017 Memorandum Opinion.1
