Rhode Island Consumers' Council v. Smith

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Rhode Island Consumers' Council v. Smith

290 A.2d 617, 110 R.I. 910, 1972 R.I. LEXIS 1019

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedMay 24, 1972

DocketM. P. Nos. 1784, 1786

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 290 A.2d 617 (Rhode Island Consumers' Council v. Smith) 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

Rhode Island Consumers' Council v. Smith, 290 A.2d 617, 110 R.I. 910, 1972 R.I. LEXIS 1019 (R.I. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

We have consolidated these two petitions for certiorari which have been filed pursuant to G. L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) §39-5-1. They seek a review of an order of the Public Utilities Commission authorizing the telephone company to file a new rate schedule for its intrastate Rhode Island business which will produce additional annual revenue of $7,989,000. The telephone company had asked.the commission to approve a rate schedule which would have produced additional annual revenue of $14,800,000.

Both petitioners seek to have the commission’s order stayed pending a final .determination by this court. The telephone company has asked,this court to permit it to operate under, its proposed rate schedule, and, if granted, it agrees to maintain its accounting records in such, form as to comply with any final order, that might.be entered in the event it is determined that the utility is.not entitled to the increases it has collected. The Consumers’ Council, in maintaining that the commission’s actions were arbitrary and illegal, has asked for a stay of the order awarding the $7,989,000 increase.

Oral argument, was heard on both motions. Counsel .for the United States of America and the Rhode Island Senior Citizens Group appeared and spoke in opposition of the telephone company’s motion. '

[911]*911Roberts, C.J., and Joslin, J., not participating. Roberts & Willey, Incorporated, Dennis J. Roberts II, David W. Carroll, for Rhode Island Consumers’ Council. Tillinghast, Collins & Graham, Andrew A. DiPrete, Peter J. McGinn, for New England Tel. and Tel. Co. Kenneth F. Maclver, Jr., Rhode Island Legal Services, Inc., for Rhode Island Senior Citizens Action Group; Archie Smith, for Public Utilities Commission; Lincoln C. Almond, United States Attorney, Everett C. Sammartino, Asst. United States Attorney, for U.S. Dept, of Defense and all other Federal Executive Agencies.

After careful consideration of both motions, arguments and memoranda offered in support thereof, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. That in each petition the motion for a stay is denied.

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

We have consolidated these two petitions for certiorari which have been filed pursuant to G. L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) §39-5-1. They seek a review of an order of the Public Utilities Commission authorizing the telephone company to file a new rate schedule for its intrastate Rhode Island business which will produce additional annual revenue of $7,989,000. The telephone company had asked.the commission to approve a rate schedule which would have produced additional annual revenue of $14,800,000.

Both petitioners seek to have the commission’s order stayed pending a final .determination by this court. The telephone company has asked,this court to permit it to operate under, its proposed rate schedule, and, if granted, it agrees to maintain its accounting records in such, form as to comply with any final order, that might.be entered in the event it is determined that the utility is.not entitled to the increases it has collected. The Consumers’ Council, in maintaining that the commission’s actions were arbitrary and illegal, has asked for a stay of the order awarding the $7,989,000 increase.

Oral argument, was heard on both motions. Counsel .for the United States of America and the Rhode Island Senior Citizens Group appeared and spoke in opposition of the telephone company’s motion. '

[911]*911Roberts, C.J., and Joslin, J., not participating. Roberts & Willey, Incorporated, Dennis J. Roberts II, David W. Carroll, for Rhode Island Consumers’ Council. Tillinghast, Collins & Graham, Andrew A. DiPrete, Peter J. McGinn, for New England Tel. and Tel. Co. Kenneth F. Maclver, Jr., Rhode Island Legal Services, Inc., for Rhode Island Senior Citizens Action Group; Archie Smith, for Public Utilities Commission; Lincoln C. Almond, United States Attorney, Everett C. Sammartino, Asst. United States Attorney, for U.S. Dept, of Defense and all other Federal Executive Agencies.

After careful consideration of both motions, arguments and memoranda offered in support thereof, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. That in each petition the motion for a stay is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.2d 617, 110 R.I. 910, 1972 R.I. LEXIS 1019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rhode-island-consumers-council-v-smith-ri-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack