Cole v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cole v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.

221 So. 2d 200, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5913

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 8, 1969

DocketNo. 68-807

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 221 So. 2d 200 (Cole v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cole v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 221 So. 2d 200, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5913 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, an alleged class plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of a final judgment dismissing her action contesting certain telephone rates fixed by the Public Service Commission. Said final judgment, in part, found that the trial court was without jurisdiction because the plaintiff’s action was “not ripe, as a matter of policy, for judicial determination, and that justice requires the application of the principles of prior resort and exhaustion of administrative remedies,”. We affirm. Odham v. Foremost Dairies, Inc., Fla.1961, 128 So.2d 586; Florida State Board of Medical Examiners v. James, Fla.App.1963, 158 So.2d 574; Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U.S. 570, 72 S.Ct. 492, 96 L.Ed. 576; 1 Fla.Jur., Administrative Law, § 234; 2 Am.Jur.2d, Administrative Law, §§ 788, 789, 795.

Said affirmance is without prejudice to the plaintiff¹ instituting such action as she might have for any illegally collected rate. Natural Gas Co. of West Virginia v. Sommerville, 113 W.Va. 100, 166 S.E. 852; Charleston Apartments Corporation v. Appalachian Electric Power Co., 118 W.Va. 694, 192 S.E. 294.

Affirmed, as modified.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, an alleged class plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of a final judgment dismissing her action contesting certain telephone rates fixed by the Public Service Commission. Said final judgment, in part, found that the trial court was without jurisdiction because the plaintiff’s action was “not ripe, as a matter of policy, for judicial determination, and that justice requires the application of the principles of prior resort and exhaustion of administrative remedies,”. We affirm. Odham v. Foremost Dairies, Inc., Fla.1961, 128 So.2d 586; Florida State Board of Medical Examiners v. James, Fla.App.1963, 158 So.2d 574; Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U.S. 570, 72 S.Ct. 492, 96 L.Ed. 576; 1 Fla.Jur., Administrative Law, § 234; 2 Am.Jur.2d, Administrative Law, §§ 788, 789, 795.

Said affirmance is without prejudice to the plaintiff¹ instituting such action as she might have for any illegally collected rate. Natural Gas Co. of West Virginia v. Sommerville, 113 W.Va. 100, 166 S.E. 852; Charleston Apartments Corporation v. Appalachian Electric Power Co., 118 W.Va. 694, 192 S.E. 294.

Affirmed, as modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 So. 2d 200, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cole-v-southern-bell-telephone-telegraph-co-fladistctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack