Ark. Code Ann. » Title 23 Chapter 03
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 23-3-119 (2026)

Complaints

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
    1. Any chamber of commerce or board of trade, mercantile, agricultural, or manufacturing association, any public utility, any municipality, any customer of a public utility, any person unlawfully treated by a public utility, or any public utility unlawfully treated by a customer, may complain to the commission in writing. The complaint shall set forth any act or thing done or omitted to be done by any public utility or customer in violation, or claimed violation, of any order, law, or regulation which the commission has jurisdiction to administer.
    2. Any consumer or prospective consumer of any utility service may complain to the commission with respect to the service, furnishing of service, or any discrimination with respect to any service or rates.
  2. Every complainant shall, before filing a complaint, make a good faith effort to informally resolve with the respondent the situation complained of. The complainant shall allege and describe, in his or her complaint, his or her efforts to achieve an informal resolution, including all informal resolution procedures which may be prescribed by commission rule or by approved tariffs.
  3. On the filing of the complaint, the commission shall cause a copy thereof to be served upon the respondent.
  4. The commission shall then have the authority, upon timely notice, to conduct investigations and public hearings, to mandate monetary refunds and billing credits, or to order appropriate prospective relief as authorized or required by law, rule, regulation, or order. The jurisdiction of the commission in such disputes is primary and shall be exhausted before a court of law or equity may assume jurisdiction. However, the commission shall not have the authority to order payment of damages or to adjudicate disputes in which the right asserted is a private right found in the common law of contracts, torts, or property.
    1. A utility may collect an award under this section by charging the complainant on his or her regular utility bill. Failure to pay shall be grounds for termination of service.
    2. The commission may order a utility to pay an award under this section in the form of one (1) or more billing credits. In the case of a former customer complainant, the commission may require a cash payment.
    1. It is the specific intent of the General Assembly in enacting the 1985 amendment to this section to vest in the Arkansas Public Service Commission the authority to adjudicate individual disputes between consumers and the public utilities which serve them when those disputes involve public rights which the commission is charged by law to administer.
    2. Public rights which the commission may adjudicate are those arising from the public utility statutes enacted by the General Assembly and the lawful rules, regulations, and orders entered by the commission in the execution of the statutes. The commission's jurisdiction to adjudicate public rights does not and cannot, however, extend to disputes in which the right asserted is a private right found in the common law of contracts, torts, or property.
    3. The commission's quasi-judicial jurisdiction to adjudicate public rights and claims in individual cases is in addition to the commission's traditional legislative authority to act generally and prospectively in the interest of the public. The quasi-judicial commission authority recognized in this section is a legitimate function and does not, in the judgment of the General Assembly, constitute an unlawful delegation of judicial authority under either the Arkansas Constitution or the United States Constitution.

History. Acts 1935, No. 324, § 17; Pope's Dig., § 2080; Acts 1985, No. 758, §§ 1, 2; A.S.A. 1947, §§ 73-216, 73-216n.

Publisher's Notes. This section was originally enacted as part of Acts 1935, No. 324, which vested regulatory authority over “public utilities” in the Department of Public Utilities of the Arkansas Corporation Commission. “Public utilities” as defined in the act (see § 23-1-101) includes carriers as well as electric, gas, water, and telephone utilities, etc. The duties of the Department of Public Utilities were then divided between the Arkansas Public Service Commission, which regulated utilities, and the Arkansas Transportation Commission, which regulated carriers. (See Publisher's Notes to chapter 2.) However, the Arkansas Transportation Commission was subsequently abolished by Acts 1987, No. 572. See Publisher's Notes to Chapter 2, Subchapter 2 of this title. Consequently, the references to “public utilities” in this section refer, by definition, to carriers as well as utilities, and references to “the commission” should refer to both commissions. However, the declaration of legislative intent which accompanied the 1985 amendment to this section and which is codified as subsection (f) of this section appears to limit the operation of the amendment to the Arkansas Public Service Commission.

Case Notes

In General.

The commission is a creature of the legislature and its duties are primarily legislative and administrative, not judicial. Lincoln v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 40 Ark. App. 27, 842 S.W.2d 51 (1992), aff'd, 313 Ark. 295, 854 S.W.2d 330 (1993).

This section does not prevent the Arkansas Public Service Commission from hearing class actions. Brandon v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 67 Ark. App. 140, 992 S.W.2d 834 (1999).

This section does not authorize the Arkansas Public Service Commission to award attorney’s fees. Brandon v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 67 Ark. App. 140, 992 S.W.2d 834 (1999).

Applicability.

Where the “public right” that petitioner was seeking to have enforced was competitive electric service, the commission correctly found that petitioner's complaint was outside the scope of this section. Lincoln v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 40 Ark. App. 27, 842 S.W.2d 51 (1992), aff'd, 313 Ark. 295, 854 S.W.2d 330 (1993).

Jurisdiction.

Rights involving a specific regulation of the commission, and affecting the delivery, measurement and cost of electrical power supplied to a consumer, fall within the primary jurisdiction of the public service commission. Ozarks Elec. Coop. Corp. v. Harrelson, 301 Ark. 123, 782 S.W.2d 570 (1990).

This section does not extend the Arkansas Public Service Commission's jurisdiction to allow it to declare § 23-18-101 unconstitutional. Lincoln v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 40 Ark. App. 27, 842 S.W.2d 51 (1992), aff'd, 313 Ark. 295, 854 S.W.2d 330 (1993).

To the extent that matter involved a dispute over rates charged by power company, its resolution fell within the purview and jurisdiction of the public service commission. Cullum v. Seagull Mid-South, Inc., 322 Ark. 190, 907 S.W.2d 741 (1995).

In customer's class action suit against a public service commission and several gas utilities challenging surcharges she paid as a result of an illegal policy implemented by the commission regarding low-income assistance, the trial court properly dismissed customer's claims as the relief she was seeking was a refund, which was within the jurisdiction of the commission to resolve under subsection (d) of this section; contrary to customer's assertion, the surcharges were not a tax but a mechanism by which the utilities could recover some of the bad debt incurred as a result of the implementation of the policy in question. Austin v. Centerpoint Energy ARKLA, 365 Ark. 138, 226 S.W.3d 814 (2006).

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).

Because the circuit court's refusal to dismiss the representative of the Arkansas consumers was not in compliance with the court's prior decision ruling, which determined that the Arkansas Public Service Commission had sole and exclusive jurisdiction over the claims as they related to the Arkansas customers, the court granted a writ of mandamus and directed the circuit court to dismiss the representative of the Arkansas consumers; the jurisdiction of the Arkansas Public Service Commission in rate disputes was primary and had to be exhausted before a court of law or equity could assume jurisdiction. Centerpoint Energy, Inc. v. Miller County Circuit Court, 372 Ark. 343, 276 S.W.3d 231 (2008).

When an electric cooperative's customers alleged the utility failed to refund patronage capital to the customers, the customers' claims were properly dismissed due to the customers' failure to seek relief from the Arkansas Public Service Commission because (1) it was alleged that the cooperative violated a duty to pay capital credits “on a reasonable and systematic basis,” (2) the main relief sought was a refund of those credits, (3) the commission had primary jurisdiction over claims that the cooperative violated § 23-18-327 and was authorized by subsection (d) of this section to order appropriate prospective relief, and (4) the customers' claims were not private damage claims based on tort, contract, or property law. Capps v. Carroll Elec. Coop. Corp., 2011 Ark. 48, 378 S.W.3d 148 (2011).

When an electric cooperative's customers who were Missouri residents alleged the utility failed to refund patronage capital to the customers, the customers' claims were properly dismissed due to the customers' failure to seek relief from the Arkansas Public Service Commission because (1) the customers did not allege a claim under Missouri law, and (2) the claims were based on an alleged failure of the cooperative to comply with Arkansas law, specifically § 23-18-327. Capps v. Carroll Elec. Coop. Corp., 2011 Ark. 48, 378 S.W.3d 148 (2011).

Circuit court erred in dismissing the property owners' complaint against an electric company and in finding that the Arkansas Public Service Commission had primary jurisdiction of the case; there was no dispute that the company had a right to use its own existing lines to transmit broadband services, but the owners' issue was with the company's entry onto their land to install completely new lines for broadband services without just compensation or an assessment of damages for the increased interference. The circuit court had exclusive, original jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute involving private-property rights and damages for inverse condemnation and increased interference. Stanley v. Ozarks Elec. Coop. Corp., 2019 Ark. App. 560, 591 S.W.3d 322 (2019).

Rates.

The only discretion the commission has in connection with the giving of notice as to change in rates is to require the utility to give notice to one or more of the interested parties enumerated in this section, it being important to bear in mind that the procedure under §§ 23-4-402 and 23-4-620 apparently envisions a full-scale rate hearing which might involve months and the expenditure of thousands of dollars. City of El Dorado v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 235 Ark. 812, 362 S.W.2d 680 (1962).

Review.

Under this section, a hunting club was required to first bring a complaint for declaratory and prospective relief before the Arkansas Public Service Commission (PSC), and to exhaust all of its administrative remedies before the PSC prior to seeking judicial relief. Hempstead County Hunting Club v. Southwestern Elec. Power Co., 2011 Ark. 234, 385 S.W.3d 123 (2011).

Standing.

Where Attorney General, in complaint against phone company for unjust enrichment, did not allege that either he or the state had been unlawfully treated, he was not entitled to bring a claim pursuant to this section; even if he was entitled to represent affected ratepayers collectively, the section still requires a named complainant who has been unlawfully treated by the utility. Bryant v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 53 Ark. App. 114, 919 S.W.2d 522 (1996).

Cited: Associated Mechanical Contractors v. Arkansas La. Gas Co., 225 Ark. 424, 283 S.W.2d 123 (1955); Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. Coxsey, 257 Ark. 534, 518 S.W.2d 485 (1975); Lincoln v. Ark. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 313 Ark. 295, 854 S.W.2d 330 (1993); Brandon v. Arkansas W. Gas Co., 76 Ark. App. 201, 61 S.W.3d 193 (2001).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: Brandon v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 992 S.W.2d 834 (Ark. Ct. App. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brandon v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 992 S.W.2d 834 (Ark. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 58× “In doing so, the Commission discussed its authority under Ark.Code Ann. § 23-3-119 (1987), noting that, as a creature of the legislature, it must act within the power conferred upon it by legislative act and that it had held on two prior occasions that it lacked jurisdiction to…”
Centerpoint Energy, Inc. v. Miller Cnty. Circuit Second Div., 258 S.W.3d 336 (Ark. 2007). · cites it 18× “See Ark. Code Ann. § 23-3-119 (a)(l) (Repl. 2002).”
Austin v. Centerpoint Energy Arkla, 226 S.W.3d 814 (Ark. 2006). · cites it 9× “may complain to the commission in writing. The complaint shall set forth any act or thing done or omitted to be done by any public utility or customer in violation, or claimed violation, of any order, law, or regulation which the commission has jurisdiction to administer.”
Hempstead Cnty. Hunting Club, Inc. v. Sw. Elec. Power Co., 385 S.W.3d 123 (Ark. 2011). · cites it 22× “|sIn reaction to Turner, the general assembly passed Act 758 of 1985, codified at Ark.Code Ann. § 23-3-119®. Act 758 clearly expressed the legislature’s disapproval of our holding in Turner and placed primary jurisdiction over disputes such as those raised in Turner in the PSC.”
Lincoln v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 842 S.W.2d 51 (Ark. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 16× “Complainant asserts that pursuant to the Commission’s quasi-judicial authority under Ark. Code Ann. § 23-3-119 , the Commission “is required, as well as empowered, to decide the constitutionality of utility and co-op practices in light of Complainant’s asserted right to a…”
Centerpoint Energy, Inc. v. Miller Cnty. Circuit Court, 276 S.W.3d 231 (Ark. 2008). · cites it 6× “" Ark. Code Ann. § 23-3-119 (f) (Repl.2002).”
Bryant v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 919 S.W.2d 522 (Ark. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 14× “Ark. Code Ann. § 23-3-119 (a)(1) and Rule 10.”
Arkansas Cnty. v. Desha Cnty., 27 S.W.3d 379 (Ark. 2000). · cites it 4× “Ark. Code Ann. § 23-3-119 (f) (3). However, in subsection (f)(2), the legislature clarified that the Commission’s jurisdiction to adjudicate public rights “does not and cannot .”
Ozarks Elec. Coop. Corp. v. Harrelson, 782 S.W.2d 570 (Ark. 1990). · cites it 4× “The circuit judge directed a verdict on the claim of malicious prosecution, but submitted the $1,500 claim to the jury, which awarded a verdict to Turner of $1,250.”
William B. Stanley, Niolene E. Stanley, Stephen C. Parker, Kathryn A. Parker, Matthew Britt, & Michael C. Willis, on Behalf of Themselves & All Others Similarly Situated v. Ozarks Elec. Coop. Corp. & Ozarksgo, LLC, 2019 Ark. App. 560 (Ark. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 17× “” Ark. Code Ann. § 23-3-119 (d). Moreover, The jurisdiction of the commission in such disputes is primary and shall be exhausted before a court of law or equity may assume jurisdiction.”
Cullum v. Seagull Mid-South, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 741 (Ark. 1995). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 23-3-119 (a), (d), (f)(1) and (2) (1987); see Ozarks Elec.”
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Connect Commc'ns, 72 F. Supp. 2d 1043 (E.D. Ark. 1999). · cites it 2× “” Ark.Code Ann. § 23-3-119(d) & (f)(2) (1987).”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Ark. Code Ann. § 23-3-119(a) — 1 case
Brandon v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 992 S.W.2d 834 (Ark. Ct. App. 1999). “In doing so, the Commission discussed its authority under Ark.Code Ann. § 23-3-119 (1987), noting that, as a creature of the legislature, it must act within the power conferred upon it by legislative act and that it had held on two prior occasions that it lacked jurisdiction to…”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 23-3-119(a)(1) — 2 cases
Centerpoint Energy, Inc. v. Miller Cnty. Circuit Second Div., 258 S.W.3d 336 (Ark. 2007). “See Ark. Code Ann. § 23-3-119 (a)(l) (Repl. 2002).”
Hempstead Cnty. Hunting Club, Inc. v. Sw. Elec. Power Co., 385 S.W.3d 123 (Ark. 2011). “|sIn reaction to Turner, the general assembly passed Act 758 of 1985, codified at Ark.Code Ann. § 23-3-119®. Act 758 clearly expressed the legislature’s disapproval of our holding in Turner and placed primary jurisdiction over disputes such as those raised in Turner in the PSC.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 23-3-119(d) — 5 cases
Centerpoint Energy, Inc. v. Miller Cnty. Circuit Second Div., 258 S.W.3d 336 (Ark. 2007). “See Ark. Code Ann. § 23-3-119 (a)(l) (Repl. 2002).”
Austin v. Centerpoint Energy Arkla, 226 S.W.3d 814 (Ark. 2006). “may complain to the commission in writing. The complaint shall set forth any act or thing done or omitted to be done by any public utility or customer in violation, or claimed violation, of any order, law, or regulation which the commission has jurisdiction to administer.”
Centerpoint Energy, Inc. v. Miller Cnty. Circuit Court, 276 S.W.3d 231 (Ark. 2008). “" Ark. Code Ann. § 23-3-119 (f) (Repl.2002).”
Lincoln v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 842 S.W.2d 51 (Ark. Ct. App. 1992). “Complainant asserts that pursuant to the Commission’s quasi-judicial authority under Ark. Code Ann. § 23-3-119 , the Commission “is required, as well as empowered, to decide the constitutionality of utility and co-op practices in light of Complainant’s asserted right to a…”
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Connect Commc'ns, 72 F. Supp. 2d 1043 (E.D. Ark. 1999). “” Ark.Code Ann. § 23-3-119(d) & (f)(2) (1987).”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 23-3-119(f) — 3 cases
Brandon v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 992 S.W.2d 834 (Ark. Ct. App. 1999). “In doing so, the Commission discussed its authority under Ark.Code Ann. § 23-3-119 (1987), noting that, as a creature of the legislature, it must act within the power conferred upon it by legislative act and that it had held on two prior occasions that it lacked jurisdiction to…”
Centerpoint Energy, Inc. v. Miller Cnty. Circuit Second Div., 258 S.W.3d 336 (Ark. 2007). “See Ark. Code Ann. § 23-3-119 (a)(l) (Repl. 2002).”
Lincoln v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 842 S.W.2d 51 (Ark. Ct. App. 1992). “Complainant asserts that pursuant to the Commission’s quasi-judicial authority under Ark. Code Ann. § 23-3-119 , the Commission “is required, as well as empowered, to decide the constitutionality of utility and co-op practices in light of Complainant’s asserted right to a…”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 23-3-119(f)(1) — 1 case
Lincoln v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 842 S.W.2d 51 (Ark. Ct. App. 1992). “Complainant asserts that pursuant to the Commission’s quasi-judicial authority under Ark. Code Ann. § 23-3-119 , the Commission “is required, as well as empowered, to decide the constitutionality of utility and co-op practices in light of Complainant’s asserted right to a…”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 23-3-119(f)(2) — 3 cases
Austin v. Centerpoint Energy Arkla, 226 S.W.3d 814 (Ark. 2006). “may complain to the commission in writing. The complaint shall set forth any act or thing done or omitted to be done by any public utility or customer in violation, or claimed violation, of any order, law, or regulation which the commission has jurisdiction to administer.”
Capps v. Carroll Elec. Coop. Corp., 378 S.W.3d 148 (Ark. 2011).
Matthew Fraser v. Carroll Elec. Coop. Corp., 2026 Ark. App. 138 (Ark. Ct. App. 2026).
— Ark. Code Ann. § 23-3-119(f)(3) — 1 case
Brandon v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 992 S.W.2d 834 (Ark. Ct. App. 1999). “In doing so, the Commission discussed its authority under Ark.Code Ann. § 23-3-119 (1987), noting that, as a creature of the legislature, it must act within the power conferred upon it by legislative act and that it had held on two prior occasions that it lacked jurisdiction to…”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 23-3-119(f)(D) — 1 case
Brandon v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 992 S.W.2d 834 (Ark. Ct. App. 1999). “In doing so, the Commission discussed its authority under Ark.Code Ann. § 23-3-119 (1987), noting that, as a creature of the legislature, it must act within the power conferred upon it by legislative act and that it had held on two prior occasions that it lacked jurisdiction to…”
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.