Ark. Code Ann. § 23-2-403 (2026)
Evidence and pleading
- The Arkansas Public Service Commission and the Arkansas Department of Transportation shall prescribe the rules of procedure and for taking of evidence in all matters that may come before them.
- On the investigations, preparations, and hearing of cases, the commission and the department shall not be bound by the strict technical rules of pleading and evidence, but they may exercise such discretion as will facilitate their efforts to ascertain the facts bearing upon the right and justice of the matters before them.
History. Acts 1945, No. 40, § 2; A.S.A. 1947, § 73-127; Acts 2017, No. 707, § 98.
A.C.R.C. Notes. Pursuant to Acts 1989 (1st Ex. Sess.), No. 153, § 2, references in this section to the Arkansas Transportation Commission have been changed to the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. The Arkansas Transportation Commission was abolished and replaced by the Transportation Regulatory Board and the Transportation Safety Agency pursuant to Acts 1987, No. 572. However, Acts 1989 (1st Ex. Sess.), No. 67, § 23, and Acts 1989 (1st Ex. Sess.), No. 153, §§ 2 and 3, abolished the board and the agency and transferred their powers, functions, and duties to the State Highway Commission and the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, respectively.
Acts 1989 (1st Ex. Sess.), No. 153, § 2, provided, in part: “Wherever the words ‘Arkansas Transportation Commission’ or ‘Transportation Safety Agency’ are used in any provision of the Code, the Acts of Arkansas or any statute, directive, rule or regulation, they shall be hereafter held and taken to mean the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department.”
Amendments. The 2017 amendment substituted “Department of Transportation” for “State Highway and Transportation Department” in (a).
Cross References. Records of proceedings, § 23-2-418.
Case Notes
Admission of Evidence.
In a hearing on a petition to transfer a certificate of convenience and necessity for the transportation of household goods, the commerce commission did not abuse its discretion by admitting in evidence lists of hauls made by the transferee taken from the books of the transferor. Fisher v. Branscum, 243 Ark. 516, 420 S.W.2d 882 (1967).
Cross-Examination of Witnesses.
Although a utility argued that the Public Service Commission violated constitutional guarantees of due process by limiting the cross-examination of witnesses, the utility waived this argument on appeal by not making a timely objection below. Entergy Ark., Inc. v. Ark. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 104 Ark. App. 147, 289 S.W.3d 513 (2008).
Judicial Review.
Public Service Commission (PSC) did not act err in declaring that an electric utility's recovery of storm restoration costs in the amount of $47 million would constitute improper, retroactive ratemaking, nor did it err in using a hypothetical debt-to-equity (D/E) ratio of 52/48 to establish the cost of capital instead of the utility's 44/56 D/E ratio; however, in calculating the dividends-payable balance, the PSC erred in using the utility's parent company's lag time. Entergy Ark., Inc. v. Ark. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 104 Ark. App. 147, 289 S.W.3d 513 (2008).
Cited: Transport Co. v. Arkansas Transp. Comm'n, 255 Ark. 919, 504 S.W.2d 366 (1974); Lee's Trucking, Inc. v. Transport Co., 303 Ark. 444, 798 S.W.2d 59 (1990).