Legal Opinion

In re Authority to Provide Alternative Operator Services in Minnesota

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided October 13, 1992No. C8-92-785PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

DAVIES, Judge.

The Minnesota Attorney General and Department of Public Service seek review of a final order after reconsideration issued by the respondent Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. The Commission’s order concluded that the telephone service known as “alternative operator service” is subject to emerging competition, and therefore is entitled to a reduced level of Commission regulation. We affirm.

FACTS

This appeal concerns telephone service known as “alternative operator service” (“AOS”). AOS is the provision of operator-assisted service for long-distance calls from locations…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce v. Minnesota Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  2. Anchor Casualty Co. v. BONGARDS CO-OPERATIVE CREAMERY ASSN.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
  3. Peoples Natural Gas Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities CommissionCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1983
  4. Beaty v. Minnesota Board of TeachingCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
  5. Morey v. School Board of Independent School District No. 492Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1965

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Ganguli v. University of MinnesotaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
  2. Minnegasco v. MN PUBLIC UTILITIES COM'NCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
  3. Matter of Applications for AuthorityCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992

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

Powered by the Exa API