Oklahoma Gas and Elec. Co. v. Lankford, 82-254
| Citation | 278 Ark. 595,648 S.W.2d 65 |
| Decision Date | 21 March 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-254,82-254 |
| Parties | OKLAHOMA GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, v. John LANKFORD et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
House, Holmes & Jewell, P.A., Little Rock, and Bryan & Fitzhugh by John H. Fitzhugh, Fort Smith, for appellant.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for Honorable John G. Holland, Circuit Judge.
Martin, Vater & Karr by Charles Karr, Fort Smith, for respondents.
Petitioner, Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG & E), seeks to prohibit the Sebastian County Circuit Court from exercising jurisdiction over a class action suit for declaratory judgment filed by respondents, customers and ratepayers of petitioner. Respondents requested that that part of Ark.Stat.Ann. § 73-217 (Repl.1979 and Supp.1981) which allows a utility to collect a requested rate increase under bond be held unconstitutional; that Article 19, Section 13 of the Arkansas Constitution be held not to limit the amount of interest paid to customers on a refund; and that other ancillary relief be awarded. OG & E filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court denied; this petition for a writ of prohibition followed.
In its petition OG & E argues that the respondents' contentions should have been presented before the Arkansas Public Service Commission (PSC) rather than the circuit court because the PSC has exclusive jurisdiction over matters pertaining to utility rates. We agree and grant the writ of prohibition.
The facts of the case are not in dispute. On May 18, 1980, OG & E filed a notice with the PSC requesting a 17.8 million dollar rate increase. On October 20, 1980, prior to approval of the requested rate increase, OG & E began collecting the increase under bond, a practice authorized by Ark.Stat.Ann. § 73-217. By orders of May 18 and July 20, 1981, the PSC approved a rate increase of 11.9 million dollars and ordered OG & E to refund, with ten percent interest, the difference between the amount approved and the 17.8 million dollar rate being collected. Respondents did not seek to intervene or request a hearing before the PSC but, later, on August 11, 1981, filed an original complaint in circuit court.
We have considered the question of the trial court's jurisdiction in several utility cases which are controlling in this instance. In McGehee v. Mid South Gas Co., 235 Ark. 50, 357 S.W.2d 282 (1962) McGehee, a stockholder in Mid South Gas Company, filed a complaint in chancery court attacking the validity of a merger agreement between Mid South and Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company. Mid South moved to dismiss the chancery court case on the ground that the same questions between the same parties were then pending before the PSC. McGehee answered, claiming that the PSC was without jurisdiction to determine the issues raised by the stockholders' suit. The chancery cou...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mississippi Power Co. v. Goudy
...969, 94 S.Ct. 1553, 39 L.Ed.2d 867 (1974); Walters v. Blackledge, 220 Miss. 485, 71 So.2d 433 (1954); and Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. Lankford, 278 Ark. 595, 648 S.W.2d 65 (1983). Appellee distinguishes the cases cited by appellants and argues that they are not authority on the present i......
-
Singing River Mall Co. v. Mark Fields, Inc.
...with the public service commission, which offered "a complete and adequate remedy." Id. at 269 (citing Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co. v. Lankford, 278 Ark. 595, 601, 648 S.W.2d 65, 66 (1983)). Thus, the plain meaning of the Mississippi statute, supported by a persuasive Court interpretation, lead......
-
Hempstead Cnty. Hunting Club, Inc. v. Sw. Elec. Power Co.
...litigation where there is a clear, adequate, and complete remedy by an application to the PSC. See Okla. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Lankford, 278 Ark. 595, 648 S.W.2d 65 (1983). Here, Hempstead had a clear, adequate, and complete remedy by filing a complaint under section 23–3–119. Providing the PS......
-
Brandon v. Arkansas Public Service Com'n
...telephone rates in Texarkana, Arkansas. General Tel. Co. v. Lowe, 263 Ark. at 730, 569 S.W.2d at 73. In Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. v. Lankford, 278 Ark. 595, 648 S.W.2d 65 (1983), the appellant sought to prohibit the Sebastian County Circuit Court from exercising jurisdiction over a clas......