STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,

v.

ROBERT RANDOLPH NORDONE, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By

• Fla. Power Corp. v. Hawkins, 367 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 1979)
  …e thirty first day. Citizens of Florida v. Mayo, 333 So. 2d at 5 n. 9 (Fla.1976). This result would be meaningless if the Commission could suspend on the thirty-second day. See Florida Interconnect Telephone Co. v. Florida Public Service Commission, 342 So. 2d 811 (Fla.1976). Public Counsel, Intervenor, argues the thirty-day limit is applicable only to the requirement the Commission give the utility a reason or good cause for withholding consent. Under this construction the Commission could withhold consent…
• Citizens OF the State OF Fla. v. Wilson, 567 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 1990)
  …atus they occupied prior to the tariff’s effective date. The argument now being embraced by Public Counsel is the same argument rejected by the Supreme Court of Florida in Florida Interconnect Telephone Company v. Florida Public Service Commission, 342 So. 2d 811 (Fla.197[6]). In that case, which was decided under the 30 day file-and-suspend statute (since amended to 60 days), Interconnect filed its complaint protesting application of a tariff 31 days after the tariff was filed by the utility. Interconnect a…
• Citizens OF the State OF Fla. v. Wilson, 568 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1990)
  …earing, the order stated: OPC argued at our Agenda Conference on August 29, 1989, that it was entitled to a hearing prior to this tariff filing going into effect. Based on Florida Interconnect Telephone Company v. Florida Public Service Commission, 342 So. 2d 811, [(Fla.1976)] a party is not entitled to a hearing prior to a tariff filing going into effect. This is certainly not to say that a substantially-affected party is not entitled to a hearing. However, such hearing may be granted after the subject tari…

  ← 1 / 2 →