Turpen v. Oklahoma Corp. Commission
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Concurrence
BRIGHTMIRE, S.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Did Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT) reach out and touch the ratepayers of this state too hard? The attorney general contends that it did. The Commission and SWBT say it did not and today this court approves a rate setting procedure employed by the Commission which I believe falls way short of that which is constitutionally acceptable.
While I agree with the result reached in Parts I and IX of the majority opinion — relating to the dismissal of the attorney general’s Rule 24 motion and the AT & T refund — I dissent from most…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. FCCSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Smyth v. AmesSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Swift v. TysonSupreme Court of the United States · 1842
- Smyth v. Ames; Smyth v. Smith; Smyth v. HigginsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.