Legal Opinion

Cities of Austin v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.

Texas Supreme Court

Decided June 6, 2002No. 01-0086PublishedCited by 174 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Enoch

In 1995, the Texas Legislature amended the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) to introduce incentive regulation as an alternative to the traditional rate-of-return scheme for setting telephone rates. 1 Under incentive regulation, a telephone company must cap its rates for basic network services, set according to previously-established rate groups. 2 The rate cap is subject to certain statutory exceptions, including one providing that the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) “shall allow a rate group reclassification that results from access line growth.” 3

Under that exception,…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Cameron v. Terrell & Garrett, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Osterberg v. PecaTexas Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Fleming Foods of Texas, Inc. v. RylanderTexas Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Tarrant Appraisal District v. MooreTexas Supreme Court · 1993

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by174 opinions

  1. Presidio Independent School District v. ScottTexas Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Hyundai Motor Co. v. VasquezTexas Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Pickett v. Texas Mutual Insurance Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2007
  4. Pruett v. Harris County Bail Bond BoardTexas Supreme Court · 2008
  5. State Farm Life Insurance Co. v. MartinezTexas Supreme Court · 2007

169 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API