New England Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Public Utilities Commission

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

New England Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Public Utilities Commission

341 A.2d 59, 115 R.I. 909, 1975 R.I. LEXIS 1219

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJuly 14, 1975

DocketM. P. 75-195

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 341 A.2d 59 (New England Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Public Utilities Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

New England Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Public Utilities Commission, 341 A.2d 59, 115 R.I. 909, 1975 R.I. LEXIS 1219 (R.I. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Certiorari, filed pursuant to G. L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) §35-5-1, seeking review of a June 27, 1975 order of the Public Utility Comission, which authorized the telephone company to file a new rate schedule for its intrastate Rhode Island business, which will produce additional revenue of $7,245,000. The telephone company had sought the Commission’s approval for a rate schedule that would have produced additional annual revenue of $19,500,000.

The telephone company in filing this petition has also filed a motion in which it seeks a stay of the Commission’s order pending a final determination by this court. The company asks that it be permitted to proceed under its proposed rate schedule, and, if we would grant this request, it would maintain its accounting records in such form as to comply with any final order that might be entered in the event it might be determined the utility is not entitled to the increase it has collected. Oral arguments were heard on the motion.

After careful consideration of the motion, arguments and *910 memorandum offered by opposing counsel, it is hereby ordered and adjudged:

Roberts, C. J., did not participate. Tillinghast, Collins & Graham, Andrew A. DiPrete, Peter J. McGinn, for petitioner. Julius C. Michaelson, Attorney General, Gregory L. Benik, Special Asst. Attorney General, for respondents. Dennis J. Roberts, II, for Consumers’ Council.

(1) that the motion for the stay is denied;

(2) that the petition is assigned to the October 1975 calendar; and

(3) that counsel are directed to brief and argue this question - assuming the Commission erred, can this court direct the filing of a new rate schedule which will permit the company to recover the funds it would have received if the Commission’s original order had enabled the company to earn a fair and reasonable rate of return on the investment the company employs in providing intrastate telephone service.

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

Certiorari, filed pursuant to G. L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) §35-5-1, seeking review of a June 27, 1975 order of the Public Utility Comission, which authorized the telephone company to file a new rate schedule for its intrastate Rhode Island business, which will produce additional revenue of $7,245,000. The telephone company had sought the Commission’s approval for a rate schedule that would have produced additional annual revenue of $19,500,000.

The telephone company in filing this petition has also filed a motion in which it seeks a stay of the Commission’s order pending a final determination by this court. The company asks that it be permitted to proceed under its proposed rate schedule, and, if we would grant this request, it would maintain its accounting records in such form as to comply with any final order that might be entered in the event it might be determined the utility is not entitled to the increase it has collected. Oral arguments were heard on the motion.

After careful consideration of the motion, arguments and *910 memorandum offered by opposing counsel, it is hereby ordered and adjudged:

Roberts, C. J., did not participate. Tillinghast, Collins & Graham, Andrew A. DiPrete, Peter J. McGinn, for petitioner. Julius C. Michaelson, Attorney General, Gregory L. Benik, Special Asst. Attorney General, for respondents. Dennis J. Roberts, II, for Consumers’ Council.

(1) that the motion for the stay is denied;

(2) that the petition is assigned to the October 1975 calendar; and

(3) that counsel are directed to brief and argue this question - assuming the Commission erred, can this court direct the filing of a new rate schedule which will permit the company to recover the funds it would have received if the Commission’s original order had enabled the company to earn a fair and reasonable rate of return on the investment the company employs in providing intrastate telephone service.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 A.2d 59, 115 R.I. 909, 1975 R.I. LEXIS 1219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-england-telephone-and-telegraph-company-v-public-utilities-commission-ri-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack