Ark. Code Ann. » Title 23 Chapter 02
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 23-2-408 (2026)

Subpoenas duces tecum

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The commission may require, by order served on any public utility in the manner provided in this act for the service of orders, the production within this state at such time and place as it may designate, of any books, accounts, papers, or records of the public utility, or of any affiliate of the utility relating to the public utility's business or affairs within the state, pertinent to any lawful inquiry and kept by the public utility or its affiliate in any office or place without this state.

History. Acts 1935, No. 324, § 28; Pope's Dig., § 2091; A.S.A. 1947, § 73-227.

Publisher's Notes. For definition of the term “commission,” see § 23-1-101.

Meaning of “this act”. See note to § 23-2-402.

Case Notes

Jurisdiction.

Supreme Court of Arkansas granted a gas utility company's writ of prohibition from a county court's denial of the company's motion to dismiss finding that the Arkansas Public Service Commission had sole and exclusive jurisdiction under § 23-4-201(a)(1) over Arkansas residential gas customers' claims that they were being charged too much for natural gas because of the company's alleged fraudulent conduct. Centerpoint Energy, Inc. v. Miller County Circuit Court, 370 Ark. 190, 258 S.W.3d 336 (2007).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2007–2007 · leading case: Centerpoint Energy, Inc. v. Miller Cnty. Circuit Second Div., 258 S.W.3d 336 (Ark. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Centerpoint Energy, Inc. v. Miller Cnty. Circuit Second Div., 258 S.W.3d 336 (Ark. 2007). · cites it 4× “" Furthermore, the APSC has the authority to require by subpoena the production of information and documents from utility companies and any of their affiliates during an investigation, whether that information is inside the State of Arkansas or outside of the state.”
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.