Legal Opinion
Indiana Bell Telephone Co. v. Office of Utility Consumer Counselor
Indiana Court of Appeals
Decided March 14, 2000No. 93A02-9801-EX-22PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION ON REHEARING
MATTINGLY, Judge
In a recent opinion 1 we held that 1) the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (“the Commission”) improperly adopted an alternative ratemaking procedure without affording interested parties adequate notice and hearing and thus lacked authority to issue its Final Order; 2) the rates Am-eritech Indiana (“Ameritech”) could charge pending an appropriate determination by the Commission would be the rates on file with the Commission at the expiration of the Opportunity Indiana settlement agreement; 3) the Commission properly denied a request by the Office of…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. v. PSI Energy, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1996
- State Ex Rel. Indianapolis Water Co. v. NIBLACK, J.Indiana Supreme Court · 1959
- City of Richmond v. Public Service CommissionIndiana Court of Appeals · 1980
- Indiana Bell Telephone Co. v. Office of Utility Consumer CounselorIndiana Court of Appeals · 1999
3Cited by5 opinions
- Nextel West Corp. v. Indiana Utility Regulatory CommissionIndiana Court of Appeals · 2005
- Indiana Department of Environmental Management v. NJK Farms, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 2010
- Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Indiana Office of Utility Consumer CounselorIndiana Court of Appeals · 2005
- Indiana Bell Telephone Co. v. Indiana Utility Regulatory CommissionIndiana Court of Appeals · 2006
- Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership v. Upper Peninsula Power CoMichigan Court of Appeals · 2015