HOME Popular Books Popular Audioooks Popular Textbooks Popular Freebooks More Genres

Book

Audiobook

Genres

Gte North Incorporated v. Public Service

By Supreme Court of Wisconsin

Release : 1993-06-03

Genre : Law, Books, Professional & Technical

Kind : ebook

(0 ratings)
The only issue before this court is whether the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) has the statutory authority to order
a refund of compensation collected by a utility in violation of its filed tariffs. The court of appeals held that the PSC
does not have this authority. We conclude that the statutes, supported by public policy, compel an opposite result. Accordingly,
we reverse. The procedural history of this case is complicated and lengthy. Mercifully, for purposes of our review only a brief recitation
of the history is necessary. This case arose from a dispute concerning the legality of certain contracts entered into between
GTE North Incorporated (GTE) and Harold Mohr (Mohr), whereby GTE provided time and temperature announcement services to Mohr.
The PSC concluded that GTE's contracts with Mohr were unlawful because they were not authorized by tariff and therefore were
in violation of the filed rate doctrine. See secs. 196.19, 196.22, 196.604, and 196.60, Stats., below. 1 The PSC ordered
GTE to refund payments made by Mohr under the contracts. The PSC now appeals that portion of a court of appeals' decision
which held that the PSC does not have the authority to order a refund of compensation collected by a utility in violation
of its filed tariffs. The court of appeals also concluded that the PSC did not sufficiently explain why it concluded that
GTE's contracts with Mohr were not authorized under GTE's "Special Equipment or Special Assemblies of Equipment" tariff. The
court of appeals remanded on that issue. However, for purposes of the resolution of the issue before us, we must assume that
GTE's contracts with Mohr were not authorized by tariff.

Gte North Incorporated v. Public Service

By Supreme Court of Wisconsin

Release : 1993-06-03

Genre : Law, Books, Professional & Technical

Kind : ebook

(0 ratings)
The only issue before this court is whether the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) has the statutory authority to order
a refund of compensation collected by a utility in violation of its filed tariffs. The court of appeals held that the PSC
does not have this authority. We conclude that the statutes, supported by public policy, compel an opposite result. Accordingly,
we reverse. The procedural history of this case is complicated and lengthy. Mercifully, for purposes of our review only a brief recitation
of the history is necessary. This case arose from a dispute concerning the legality of certain contracts entered into between
GTE North Incorporated (GTE) and Harold Mohr (Mohr), whereby GTE provided time and temperature announcement services to Mohr.
The PSC concluded that GTE's contracts with Mohr were unlawful because they were not authorized by tariff and therefore were
in violation of the filed rate doctrine. See secs. 196.19, 196.22, 196.604, and 196.60, Stats., below. 1 The PSC ordered
GTE to refund payments made by Mohr under the contracts. The PSC now appeals that portion of a court of appeals' decision
which held that the PSC does not have the authority to order a refund of compensation collected by a utility in violation
of its filed tariffs. The court of appeals also concluded that the PSC did not sufficiently explain why it concluded that
GTE's contracts with Mohr were not authorized under GTE's "Special Equipment or Special Assemblies of Equipment" tariff. The
court of appeals remanded on that issue. However, for purposes of the resolution of the issue before us, we must assume that
GTE's contracts with Mohr were not authorized by tariff.

advertisement

Access e-books

More By Supreme Court of Wisconsin

City Madison v. Frank Lloyd Wright

Whirlpool Corporation v. Sharon Ziebert

Wisconsin Employment Relations Board V.

Marshfield Clinic v. Paul F. Doege

Jones v. Citibank

Maslow Cooperage Corp. v. Weeks Pickle Co.

Greggory R. Devore v. Ihc Hospitals

Dail Ray Stewart v. State Utah

Knutson And Wife v. Mueller

Beecher v. Labor & Industry Review Commission

Crest Chevrolet-Oldsmobile-Cadillac V.

William Harmann v. Cherie Hadley

Promulgation a Code Judicial Ethics

Janet Limberg v. Harold Limberg Et Al.

State Wisconsin v. George E. Johnson

Margaret Gotz v. Eugene Gotz

Hoepner v. City Eau Claire

Cogger and Another v. Trudell and Others

Joseph Nechodomu v. Wilbert Lindstrom

S. S. Kresge Co. Michigan v. Winkelman

State v. Michels Pipeline Construction

State v. Retail Gasoline Dealers Assn

State v. Turpin

Pat Christine Savage v. Educators

Margaret Holm v. Michael Smilowitz

Panorama Residential Protective Association v. Panorama Corp.

Prince v. Savage

State Vermont v. Jacob Levine

Old National Bank of Washington v. Arneson

Makah Indian Tribe v. The

Couie v. Local Union No. 1849 United Brotherhood of Carpenters

Fish v. Halferty

Mandella v. State (Two Cases). Fazio V.

Salt Lake Knee & Sports Rehabilitation V.

Alicia Larson v. Marc Larson

Lisa Hooley Olsen v. Harold K. Hooley

Doyce Allen v. Utah Department Health

Erin Jo Chambers v. Thomas D. Chambers

Robyn Lynn Sneddon v. Robert Graham and

Poundstone v. Whitney

Charles Belock Et Al. v. State Mutual Fire

Mae E. Murray v. John M. Allen

02/18/93 Michelle T. V. Cecil Crozier

Barbara H. Crossman v. Lyle P. Crossman

Dewitt Ross & Stevens

Day v. Frazer

Gte North Incorporated v. Public Service

Engel v. Van Den Boogart

State Utah v. Francis Preston Mitchell

Washington v. Dickerson