State ex rel. Office of Public Counsel v. Public Service Commission, SC 89176.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Citation | 266 S.W.3d 842 |
| Docket Number | No. SC 89176.,SC 89176. |
| Parties | STATE EX REL. OFFICE OF PUBLIC COUNSEL, Relator, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF the STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 14 October 2008 |
v.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF the STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., Respondents.
Lewis R. Mills, Jr., Michael F. Dandino, Christina Baker, Office of Public Counsel, Jefferson City, MO, for Relator.
Kevin A. Thompson, Dennis Frey, Jennifer Heintz, Peggy A. Whipple, Missouri Public Service Commission, Diana C. Carter, James C. Swearengen, Dean L. Cooper, Russell L. Mitten, Janet Wheeler, Brydon, Swearengen & England P.C., James M. Fischer, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Shelley A. Woods, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson, City, MO, Curtis D. Blanc, William G. Riggins, Kansas City, MO, for Respondents.
David Woodsmall, Jefferson City, MO, Stuart Conrad, Kansas City, MO, for Amicus Curiae.
PER CURIAM.
This proceeding is the second action filed by the public counsel to contest a rate increase sought by the Empire District Electric Company. As with the first action, the public service commission again is directed to vacate its order.
Facts
The public service commission first purported to approve an increase for Empire Electric on December 29, 2006, to be effective January 1, 2007. The public counsel sought a writ of mandamus. This Court noted that the law specifies 30 days for applying for rehearing but allows the commission the discretion to set a shorter time as long as the time is reasonable. The Court concluded that by issuing the December 29 order with an effective date of January 1, 2007, the commission abused its discretion to provide public counsel with a reasonable period of time in which to appeal the order. The Court ordered the commission "to vacate its order granting expedited treatment and approving tariffs issued on December 29, 2006, and allow public counsel reasonable time to prepare and file an application for rehearing on the tariffs." Public Counsel v. Public Service Com'n, 236 S.W.3d 632, 637 (Mo. banc 2007).
In response, the commission entered an order on December 4, 2007, stating that it vacated its previous order of December 29, 2006, but also again approving the tariffs it previously approved in its December 29, 2006, order. The commission also declared that "if Empire charged the rates as approved in the December 29, 2007, [sic] order, it charged the correct rates. And further, those rates remain `in effect at the time' until the order is vacated."
Discuss...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Olofson v. Olofson, SC 98043
...is the same as though the order or judgment had never been made." State ex rel. Off. of Pub. Couns. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Mo. , 266 S.W.3d 842, 843 (Mo. banc 2008). If Wife proves fraud, readjudication of the division of marital property would require the circuit court to divide the marit......
-
Olofson v. Olofson, SC98043
...is the same as though the order or judgment had never been made." State ex rel. Off. of Pub. Couns. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Mo., 266 S.W.3d 842, 843 (Mo. banc 2008). If Wife proves fraud, readjudication of the division of marital property would require the circuit court to divide the marita......
-
Kan. City Power & Light Co.'s Request for Auth. to Implement a General Rate Increase for Elec. Serv. v. Mo. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, WD 79125 Consolidated with WD 79143
...Tariff Order, it would be as if that order had never been made. See State ex rel. Office of Pub. Counsel v . Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 266 S.W.3d 842, 843 (Mo.banc 2008) ("The general rule is that when an order or judgment is vacated, the previously existing status is restored and the situation is......
-
People ex rel. C.G., Court of Appeals No. 14CA2172
...accord Nielson v. Patterson, 204 Ariz. 530, 65 P.3d 911, 914 (2003) ; State ex rel. Office of Pub. Counsel v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 266 S.W.3d 842, 843 (Mo.2008).¶ 29 Consistent with these precedents, the federal district court has recognized that a ruling on father's C.R.C.P. 60(b) motion "ma......