Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 37-1-143 (2026)

Review of Case to Be Upon Certified Record or Transcript; Remand of Case to Commission for Additional Proceedings; Employment of Special Masters, Accountants, Consultants, Etc., by Chief Justice.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The court shall review the case upon the certified record or transcript of the commission, and no new or additional evidence shall be introduced or oral testimony heard, but the court may, in advance of its judgment, remand the case to the commission for the purpose of taking additional testimony or other proceedings. In the event the court, in advance of its judgment, does not remand the case to the commission for the purpose of taking additional testimony or other proceedings, then the court shall have up to 180 days from the date the case is submitted to the court to render its judgment.

For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this subdivision 2, the chief justice of the supreme court, with the advice and consent of the supreme court, is hereby authorized to appoint such special masters, accountants, utility rate-making consultants and such other personnel as he deems necessary to aid and assist the court in these appellate procedures. Such personnel may be appointed and employed on a part-time or full-time basis without regard to the merit system.

(Acts 1978, No. 851, p. 1274, §4.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1980–1985 · leading case: Cont'l Tel. Co. v. ALA. PUB. Serv. Comm'n, 479 So. 2d 1195 (Ala. 1985).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cont'l Tel. Co. v. ALA. PUB. Serv. Comm'n, 479 So. 2d 1195 (Ala. 1985). · cites it 2× “Code 1975, § 37-1-143, provides, in part, as follows: "The court shall review the case upon the certified record or transcript of the commission, and no new or additional evidence shall be introduced or oral testimony heard, but the court may, in advance of its judgment, remand…”

Ala. Power Co. v. Ala. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 390 So. 2d 1017 (Ala. 1980). · cites it 2× “m a reading of the order that the APSC considered all evidence, including the Attorney General's proposals, I see no need to have the APSC tell us again that it did, in fact, consider all the evidence; however, since a majority of this Court finds that it cannot determine…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.