Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utility Commission
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY v. PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the denial of a temporary injunction in a rate case. The court of civil appeals affirmed the denial of the temporary injunction. 615 S.W.2d 947 .
The court of civil appeals correctly held that the applicant for a temporary injunction in a rate case must demonstrate: (1) that there is a reasonable probability that the utility will succeed on the merits of its claim, after final hearing; (2) that the loss to the utility will be irreparable; and (3) that the utility’s customers will be adequately protected by bond during the period of time the Commission’s order is suspended. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utility Commission, 571 S.W.2d 503, 506 (Tex.1978); City of Houston v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 263 S.W,2d 169 (Tex.Civ.App.—Galveston 1953, writ ref’d). The purpose of the temporary injunction in rate cases is to protect the utility against confiscatory rates established by a regula *83 tory authority pending appeal; thus maintenance of the status quo is not an issue in rate cases as it is in other temporary injunction cases. General Telephone Co. v. City of Wellington, 156 Tex. 238 , 294 S.W.2d 385 (1956); see Big Three Industries, Inc. v. Railroad Commission, 618 S.W.2d 543 (Tex.1981); Davis v. Huey, 571 S.W.2d 859 (Tex.1978); Transport Co. of Texas v. Robertson Transports, 152 Tex. 551 , 261 S.W.2d 549 (1953).
The court of civil appeals held that Southwestern Bell could not demonstrate irreparable harm because the rates could be adjusted retroactively if later determined to be confiscatory. We expressly reserve the question of the Commission’s ability to retroactively adjust rates under the Public Utility Regulatory Act, Texas Civil Statutes Annotated article 1446c, and the Administrative Procedures Act, Texas Civil Statutes Annotated article 6252-13a.
We agree that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the temporary injunction. The applications for writ of error are refused, no reversible error.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 40 cases
View all citing references →- Federal District Courts1
- State Highest Courts2
- State Appellate Courts36
- State Attorney General Opinions1
Relies on it most ⓘ
- Public Utility Commission v. General Telephone Co. of the Southwest
- Moran Utilities Co. v. Railroad Commission of Texas
- El Paso Electric Co. v. Public Utility Commission
- Public Utility Commission of Texas, State Purchasing and General Services Commission, Office of Public Utility Counsel and Cities of Abernathy v. Gte-Sw
- Vista Medical Center Hospital v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company
- Antonio Arriaga and Inez Lara Rosales v. Obdulia Martinez Arriaga, Antonio Martinez Arriaga Jr., and Reyna Luisa Martinez Arriaga
Most recent
- McElvy v. Southwestern Correctional LLC
- Antonio Arriaga and Inez Lara Rosales v. Obdulia Martinez Arriaga, Antonio Martinez Arriaga Jr., and Reyna Luisa Martinez Arriaga
- Entergy Texas, Inc.// Office of Public Utility Counsel and Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Public Utility Commission of Texas and Texas Industrial Energy Consumers// Office of Public Utility Counsel and Entergy Texas, Inc.
- Vista Medical Center Hospital v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company
- Vista Medical Center Hospital v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company
- Centerpoint Energy Entex v. Railroad Commission
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.