UNITED TELEPHONE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
WILLIAM T. MAYO, AS CHAIRMAN AND JERRY W. CARTER AND EDWIN L. MASON AS MEMBERS OF AND CONSTITUTING THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
United Telephone Company challenged a Public Service Commission order conditioning approval of a rate increase on the company completing planned service improvements. The Florida Supreme Court held that the PSC's conditional rate approval was authorized by statute and did not violate due process.
The Commission's order conditioning the rate increase on planned improvements was authorized by Florida Statute § 366.041, which expressly permits the Commission to consider the efficiency, adequacy of facilities, and ability of utilities to improve service when fixing rates. The statute does not violate the due process clause.
“In fixing the just, reasonable, and compensatory rates, charges, fares, tolls, or rentals to be observed and charged for service within the state of Florida by any and all public utilities under its jurisdiction, the Florida public service commission is authorized to give consideration, among other things, to the efficiency, sufficiency, and adequacy of the facilities provided and the services rendered, the value of such service to the public, and the ability of the utility to improve such service and facilities”
Establishes the statutory authority for the PSC to consider service adequacy and utility's ability to improve service when fixing rates
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceUnited Telephone Company of Florida sought a rate increase from the Public Service Commission. The Commission withheld approval of the rate increase u…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Public Service Commission cases and more on FLexlaw
This case comes to us upon petition to review an order of the Public Service Commission withholding approval of a rate increase sought by the United Telephone Company of Florida until improvements planned by the Company were accomplished. Squarely in the path of those who would oppose the ruling by the Commission is Fla.Stat. § 366.041 (1967), F.S.A., Ch. 67-326, Laws of Florida, which plainly authorizes what was done in this case for it expressly provides:
“In fixing the just, reasonable, and compensatory rates, charges, fares, tolls, or rentals to be observed and charged for service within the state of Florida by any and all public utilities under its jurisdiction, the Florida public service commission is authorized to give consideration, among other things, to the efficiency, sufficiency, and adequacy of the facilities provided and the services rendered, the value of such service to the public, and the ability of the utility to improve such service and facilities; provided that no public utility shall be denied a reasonable rate of return upon its rate base in any order entered pursuant to such proceedings. In its consideration thereof, the commission shall have authority, and it shall be the commission’s duty, to hear service complaints, if any, that may be presented by subscribers and the public during any proceedings involving such rates, charges, fares, tolls, or rentals * *
*610But, says the petitioners, the law on the subject was settled by our decision in Florida Telephone Corporation v. Carter, 70 So.2d 508 (Fla.1954), when it was held that the Commission could not authorize an increase in rates and at the same time assess a penalty for inadequate service. It is obvious, however, that the Act which we think now governs was enacted subsequent to that pronouncement by the Court and, for ought we know, was intended to overcome the decision.
Petitioners next assault the statute as being unconstitutional because it deprives it of its property, supposedly the amount of the rate increase, without due process of law.
We cannot accept this argument, which we consider unusual, and we hold that the Commission’s order is authorized by the statute and that the statute is not shown beyond a reasonable doubt to be invalid.
The Order of the Commission is affirmed.
CALDWELL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, ERVIN and HOPPING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reubin O'D Askew v. Bevis, 283 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 1973)…appears to me that the majority for all practical purposes has reverted to the rationale of Florida Telephone Corp. v. Carter (Fla.1954), 70 So. 2d 508, in the instant decision and receded from United Telephone Company of Florida v. Mayo (Fla.1968), 215 So. 2d 609, contrary to the intent and purpose of F.S., Section 366.041, F.S.A. In the Mayo case, F.S., Section 366.041, F.S.A. was obviously held by us to “withhold approval of a rate increase until improvements planned by the company were accomplished.” Th…1 / 2
-
Mobile Am. Corp., Inc. v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 37 Fla. Supp. 36 (Duval Cty. Cir. Ct. 1972)…outlined in the opinion conferred on the Missouri Public Service Commission substantially the same powers as are conferred on the Florida Public Service Commission under chapter 364, Florida Statutes. See also, United Telephone of Florida v. Mayo, 215 So. 2d 609 (1968), Ellison v. Rayonier, 156 Fed.Supp. 214 (U.S. D.C., Wash., 1957), and State ex rel. Department of Public Works v. Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, 144 Wash. 383, 258 Pac. 313 (1927), and 1 Fla.Jur., Administrative Law, §234 (1972 Supp…
-
N. Fla. Water Co. v. Bevis, 302 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1974)…s that no public utility shall be denied a reasonable rate of return, it in no manner compels the Commission to grant a rate increase where the applicant’s existing service is shown to be inefficient. See United Telephone Company of Florida v. Mayo, 215 So. 2d 609 (Fla.1968). Our holding in Askew v. Bevis, 283 So. 2d 337 (Fla.1973), decided subsequent to the United Telephone Company case, is not controlling. In Askew v. Bevis, supra, we upheld a Commission order granting the utility a rate increase under bon…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Tel. Corp. v. Carter, 70 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1954)