Georgia Public Service Commission v. General Tel. Co. of Southeast, s. 26430-26432
Decision Date | 20 May 1971 |
Docket Number | Nos. 26430-26432,s. 26430-26432 |
Citation | 227 Ga. 727,182 S.E.2d 793 |
Parties | GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION et al. v. GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF the SOUTHEAST. GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION et al. v. GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF GEORGIA. GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION et al. v. MUTUAL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Inc. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert J. Castellani, John W. Hinchey, Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, for appellants.
Trotter & Duncan, Thurman E. Duncan, William P. Trotter, LaGrange, John Robert Jones, Power, Jones, Bell & Schneider, William R. White, Columbus, Ohio, Ward W. Wueste, Jr., Durham, N.C., for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The Georgia Public Service Commission appeals from an interlocutory order of the superior court which enjoins as confiscatory the rates authorized for appellees.
Appellant contends 'That the trial court erred in finding confiscation based on new, updated financial data which had never been presented to the Commission by rehearing or otherwise' and therefore the appellees 'have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.'
The evidence shows: In March, 1969 appellees applied to the Georgia Public Service Commission for rate increases. Hearings were held in May and June, 1969. On June 18, 1970, rate increases less than those requested were authorized. Appellees filed for rehearings on July 6, 1970. They were denied on July 17, 1970. Thereafter, these actions to enjoin the rates were instituted in the superior court on August 11, 1970. The evidence received by the Georgia Public Service Commission was limited to a test year ending December 31, 1968. The trial court received and considered evidence not only for the test year but subsequent thereto and up to May 31, 1970, as presented by appellees. Held:
Equity courts refuse jurisdiction where an adequate administrative remedy is available and has not been exhausted. The Georgia Public Service Commission was created for a special purpose with special competence to deal with special matters including the establishment of rates for public utilities. The courts presuppose it will provide a proper adjudication of such matters. When its administrative procedures have been followed and a final rate order is entered, as here, for which no appeal is provided, we must conclude such administrative remedies are exhausted. Thereafter, a court of equity will take jurisdiction to determine the constitutional question of confiscation. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Georgia Public Service Commission, 203 Ga. 832, 871, 872, 49 S.E.2d 38, 62, 63.
The instant cases filed in the superior court are de novo proceedings. Georgia Power Co. v. Georgia Public Service Commission, 211 Ga. 223, 229, 85 S.E.2d 14. They raise the constitutional question of confiscation. In passing upon this issue the trial court is authorized to consider all evidence bearing on the question. City of Atlanta v. Atlanta Gas Light Company, 149 Ga. 405, 100 S.E. 439; City of Atlanta v. Ga. Railway & Power Co., 149 Ga. 411, 417, 100 S.E. 442. See 4 Davis, Administrative Law 163, § 29.09.
There is no merit in appellant's contention.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur, except FELTON, J., who dissents.
In a proceeding on the application of appellees for a raise in rates the Georgia Public Service Commission received evidence from a 'test year' ending on December 31, 1968. The appellees filed motions for rehearing of adverse judgments or findings by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Georgia Power Co. v. Georgia Public Service Com'n
...to deal with special matters including the establishment of rates for public utilities." Ga. Public Svc. Comm. v. Gen. Telephone Co. of Southeast, 227 Ga. 727-728, 182 S.E.2d 793 (1971). See Lasseter v. Ga. Public Svc. Comm., 253 Ga. 227, 230(2), 319 S.E.2d 824 (1984). "The commission shall......
-
DeKalb County v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Company
...plaintiff for reconsideration. In viewing a similar situation, the Georgia Supreme Court stated in Ga. Pub. Serv. Comm. v. Gen. Tel. Co. of Ga., 227 Ga. 727, 728, 182 S.E.2d 793, 794 (1971) equity courts refuse jurisdiction where an adequate administrative remedy is available and has not be......
-
Georgia Power Co. v. Allied Chemical Corp.
...I see it, is that it is a de novo proceeding to determine what are just and reasonable rates. Georgia Public Service Commission v. General Telephone Company of Georgia, 227 Ga. 727, 182 S.E.2d 793. The majority finds such a de novo proceeding to be judicially unmanageable, and in this I The......
-
Georgia Public Service Com'n v. Southern Bell
...by filing a suit in equity in the superior court to enjoin enforcement of the Commission's orders. See Ga. Public Service Comm. v. General Tel. Co., 227 Ga. 727, 182 S.E.2d 793 (1971); Ga. Power Co. v. Ga. Public Service Comm., 231 Ga. 339, 201 S.E.2d 423 (1973); Statesboro Tel. v. Public S......