FIRST FLORIDA UTILITIES, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
JESS YARBOROUGH ET AL., 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.
Florida Supreme Court denied First Florida Utilities' petition for certiorari review of a Public Service Commission order that granted a phased rate increase rather than the full requested increase, finding no useful purpose in intervention given the imminent April 1973 implementation date.
The Court denied the petition for certiorari review without prejudice, finding that the imminent April 1, 1973 rate increase and the Commission's broad discretion in rate determinations made intervention impractical at that time.
[1] A public utility's petition for certiorari review of a Public Service Commission rate order may be denied as premature when a subsequent rate increase is imminent and the…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFirst Florida Utilities requested authority to increase rates to $10.92 per customer per month for its Merritt Island sewer system. The Public Service…
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 Fair Return On Investment cases and more on FLexlaw
The Petitioner has asked that we review an order of the Public Service Commission dated October 13, 1972. The Petitioner had previously requested authority to increase its rates to $10.92 per customer per month within its Merrit Island sewer system.
In its order, the Commission found that the utility’s service was satisfactory and that it was in need of increased revenue. It therefore granted the Petitioner authority to increase its rates to $7.08 per custom*526er per month as of October 13, 1972, with further authority to increase its rates to $10.92 per customer per month on billings on and after April 1, 1973. Petitioner asserts that it was error for the Commission to delay a portion of the requested rate increase in light of the Commission’s contemporaneous finding that “the proposed rates do not produce sufficient revenue to meet this utility’s expenses. . . .”
The imminency of the April 1, 1973 rate increase considered in relation to the broad discretion exercisable by the Commission in rate determinations, inclines us to the view that no useful purpose would be served by our certiorari intervention in the cause at this time.
Accordingly, we deny the petition without prejudice to further application for a rate increase.
It is so ordered.
CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
DEKLE, J., dissents with Opinion.
(dissenting) :
It is patent error for a Commission contemporaneously to find that the utility’s proposed rate increase is necessary and past due; that the proposed increased rate does not even produce sufficient revenue to meet the utility’s expenses; and then to defer the application and collection of such increased fee until April 1, 1973. Meanwhile, the utility admittedly continues to lose money contrary to applicable principles and statute.1 This is clearly error and the cause should be remanded for immediate application of the increase.
The fact that April 1, now the designated (deferred) date of increase, is “imminent” is no justification for delaying application of the newly approved rate even for that brief time. It simply extends the period, which has been running already, during which the utility has been losing money. I would make the rate immediately effective. Utilities Operating Co. v. King, 143 So.2d 854 (Fla.1962).
I must therefore respectfully dissent.
DEKLE, Justice
(dissenting) :
It is patent error for a Commission contemporaneously to find that the utility’s proposed rate increase is necessary and past due; that the proposed increased rate does not even produce sufficient revenue to meet the utility’s expenses; and then to defer the application and collection of such increased fee until April 1, 1973. Meanwhile, the utility admittedly continues to lose money contrary to applicable principles and statute.1 This is clearly error and the cause should be remanded for immediate application of the increase.
The fact that April 1, now the designated (deferred) date of increase, is “imminent” is no justification for delaying application of the newly approved rate even for that brief time. It simply extends the period, which has been running already, during which the utility has been losing money. I would make the rate immediately effective. Utilities Operating Co. v. King, 143 So. 2d 854 (Fla.1962).
I must therefore respectfully dissent.
. Fla.Stat. § 367.081(2) — Guaranteeing fair return on investment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…_______ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ WOLF, J., concurring with opinion. I reluctantly concur. While I believe the reasoning of Kline v. State, 274 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), should apply and allow us to affirm the denial of the motion for new trial, I believe binding precedent requires us to remand to assure the trial court did not apply the wrong standard in ruling on the motion.* * In finding tha…
Authorities Cited
- Utils. Operating Co., Inc. v. King, 143 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 1962)