Ozarks Elec. Co-op. Corp. v. Turner

• Decision Date: 18 October 1982
• Docket Number: No. 82-94,82-94
• Citation: 640 S.W.2d 438,277 Ark. 209
• Parties: OZARKS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Lawrence TURNER, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 438

640 S.W.2d 438

277 Ark. 209

OZARKS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Lawrence TURNER, Appellee.

No. 82-94.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Oct. 18, 1982.

Burke & Eldridge by John R. Eldridge, III, Fayetteville, for appellant.

Davis & Bracey, P.A. by Charles E. Davis, Springdale, for appellee.

HAYS, Justice.

In April, 1979, appellant, Ozarks Electric, discovered that the meter seal and glass were broken on the appellee's electric meter and evidence that the meter was not recording all appellee's electrical usage. Appellant threatened discontinuance of electric service unless appellee paid $1,500.00 for what it calculated to be due. Appellee denied he had tampered with the meter, but paid the amount demanded. Appellant also gave information to the prosecuting attorney and charges were brought against the appellee for theft of electrical services, but he was acquitted of the charge.

Appellee then filed charges against Ozarks for malicious prosecution and for the return of his $1,500.00. The trial judge directed a verdict for appellant on the malicious prosecution charge, but submitted the claim of $1,500.00 to the jury, which awarded $1,250.00.

Appellant brings this appeal for an interpretation of statutes granting jurisdiction of certain matters to the Arkansas Public Service Commission, Ark.Stats.Ann. §§ 73-101 et seq. (Repl.1977), arguing that the dispute over the $1,500.00 was within the jurisdiction of the APSC and prior resort should have been made to that body. We disagree with the appellant's contentions.

Although the APSC is vested with broad authority, it does not have the power to deal exclusively with all matters involving utilities. We discussed this problem in Southwestern Electric Power Company v. Coxsey, 257 Ark. 534, 518 S.W.2d 485 (1975) where we distinguished between legislative functions, which could properly be carried out by an administrative body, and judicial functions, which could not. See also, Southwestern Gas & Electric Co. v. City of Hatfield, 219 Ark. 515, 243 S.W.2d 378 (1951). This does not mean that quasi-judicial functions cannot be performed in the exercise of the powers conferred for the general purposes of regulating and controlling public utilities. "But the effect of the inquiry, and of the decision upon it, is determined by the nature of the act to which the inquiry and decision lead up." Hatfield, supra, at 521, 243 S.W.2d 378.

In Coxsey, supra, two electric companies, SWEPCO and Carroll, had certificates of convenience from APSC. SWEPCO had contracted with Beaver Water District to supply service, and Carroll filed a petition for declaratory judgment that Beaver was in territory belonging to Carroll. SWEPCO sought a writ of prohibition, contending the APSC had exclusive jurisdiction. We held that this was a judicial decision and not a legislative one:

The primary question--in fact the only question--raised by Carroll in the instant suit is whether, under existing certificates from the APSC, it has the exclusive legal right to service Beaver. The legislative and administrative duties of APSC were exercised when the certificates were awarded. Carroll is saying: "We hold an exclusive franchise from the APSC to service the area upon which SWEPCO has encroached. We want SWEPCO ejected."

We concluded by quoting Justice ...