12 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. AG Processing, Inc. v. Public Service Commissiongreen2 sentences2014Pursuant to the filed rate doctrine as set forth in section 393.140(11), RSMo 2000, 7 a utility company is prohibited “‘from collecting any rates other than those properly filed with the appropriate regulatory agency.’ ” AG Processing, 311 S.W.3d at 365 (citation omitted). ‘“This aspect of the filed rate doctrine constitutes a rule against retroactive ratemaking or retroactive rate alteration.’ ” Id. (citation omitted). 2014Pursuant to the filed rate doctrine as set forth in section 393.140(11), RSMo 2000, 7 a utility company is prohibited “‘from collecting any rates other than those properly filed with the appropriate regulatory agency.’ ” AG Processing, 311 S.W.3d at 365 (citation omitted). ‘“This aspect of the filed rate doctrine constitutes a rule against retroactive ratemaking or retroactive rate alteration.’ ” Id. (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
General Motors Corp. v. Illinois Commerce Commissiongreen2 sentences1997General Motors v. Illinois Commerce Com'n, 143 Ill.2d 407 , 158 Ill.Dec. 537, 543 , 574 N.E.2d 650, 656 (1991)(citing Nantahala, 476 U.S. at 966 , 106 S.Ct. at 2356-57 ). 1997General Motors v. Illinois Commerce Com'n, 143 Ill.2d 407 , 158 Ill.Dec. 537, 543 , 574 N.E.2d 650, 656 (1991)(citing Nantahala, 476 U.S. at 966 , 106 S.Ct. at 2356-57 ). | 2 | 2 |
Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commissiongreen2 sentences1997Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. F.E.R.C., 831 F.2d 1135 , 1140 (D.C.Cir.1987). 1997Associated Gas Distributors v. F.E.R.C., 893 F.2d 349, 354 (D.C.Cir.1989); Columbia, 831 F.2d at 1141. | 2 | 2 |
Associated Gas Distributors v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co., Intervenorsgreen2 sentences1997Associated Gas Distributors v. F.E.R.C., 893 F.2d 349, 354 (D.C.Cir.1989); Columbia, 831 F.2d at 1141. 1997Associated Gas Distributors v. F.E.R.C., 893 F.2d 349, 354 (D.C.Cir.1989); Columbia, 831 F.2d at 1141. | 2 | 2 |
Brooks v. Empire District Electric Co.green2 sentences2018Brooks , 420 S.W.3d at 592 . 2018See Brooks , 420 S.W.3d at 593 ; Matter of Missouri-American Water Co. , 516 S.W.3d at 823 . | 1 | 1 |
Straube v. Bowling Green Gas Co.green2 sentences2013“When the established rate of a utility has been followed, the amount so collected becomes the property of the utility, of which it cannot be deprived by either legislative or judicial action without violating the due process provisions of the state and federal constitutions.” Straube v. Bowling Green Gas Co., 360 Mo. 132 , 227 S.W.2d 666, 671 (1950); see also State ex rel. 2013“When the established rate of a utility has been followed, the amount so collected becomes the property of the utility, of which it cannot be deprived by either legislative or judicial action without violating the due process provisions of the state and federal constitutions.” Straube v. Bowling Green Gas Co., 360 Mo. 132 , 227 S.W.2d 666, 671 (1950); see also State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Bauer v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.green1 sentence2013Co., 958 S.W.2d 568, 570 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Firstcom, Inc. v. Qwest Corp.green1 sentence2013Such retroactive rate-making “is directly contrary to the filed rate doctrine, which ‘prohibits a party from recovering damages measured by comparing the filed rate and the rate that might have been approved absent the conduct in issue.’ ” Crumley v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 556 F.3d 879, 881 (8th Cir.2009) (quoting Firstcom, Inc. v. Qwest Corp., 555 F.3d 669, 679 (8th Cir.2009)); Bauer v. Southwestern Bell Tel. | 1 | 1 |
Crumley v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.green1 sentence2013Such retroactive rate-making “is directly contrary to the filed rate doctrine, which ‘prohibits a party from recovering damages measured by comparing the filed rate and the rate that might have been approved absent the conduct in issue.’ ” Crumley v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 556 F.3d 879, 881 (8th Cir.2009) (quoting Firstcom, Inc. v. Qwest Corp., 555 F.3d 669, 679 (8th Cir.2009)); Bauer v. Southwestern Bell Tel. | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Ang v. Pscgreen2 sentences2010Associated Natural Gas Co., 954 S.W.2d at 531 . 2010“This aspect of the filed rate doctrine constitutes a rule against retroactive ratemaking or retroactive rate alteration.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
Wegoland Ltd. v. Nynex Corp.green2 sentences1997Courts that have considered the fraud issue almost unanimously have “rejected the notion that there is a fraud exception to the filed rate doctrine.” Wegoland Ltd. v. NYNEX Corp., 27 F.3d 17, 20 (2d Cir.1994) (citations omitted). 1997In response, the court stated, “Because most of the animating policies behind that filed rate doctrine are not diminished in the class action context, we hold that the filed rate doctrine applies whether or not plaintiffs are suing for a class.” Wegoland, 27 F.3d at 22 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg
green
2 sentences2016The filed rate doctrine requires “that interstate power rates filed with FERC or fixed by FERC must be given binding effect by state utility commissions determining intrastate rates.” Nantahala, 476 U.S. at 962 , 106 S.Ct. 2349 . 2016The filed rate doctrine requires “that interstate power rates filed with FERC or fixed by FERC must be given binding effect by state utility commissions determining intrastate rates.” Nantahala, 476 U.S. at 962 , 106 S.Ct. 2349 . | 4 | 1997–2016 |
State Ex Rel. Utility Consumers Council of Missouri, Inc. v. Public Service Commission
green
2 sentences2011Appellants’ retroactive ratemaking arguments must fail under the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision in Utility Consumers’ Council (“UCCM”), 585 S.W.2d 41. 1998Utility Consumers Council, 585 S.W.2d at 56 . | 2 | 1998–2011 |
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Hall
green
2 sentences1997Nantahala, 476 U.S. at 963 , 106 S.Ct. at 2355 ; Arkansas, 453 U.S. at 577 , 101 S.Ct. at 2930 . 1997Nantahala, 476 U.S. at 963 , 106 S.Ct. at 2355 ; Arkansas, 453 U.S. at 577 , 101 S.Ct. at 2930 . | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Missouri Public Service Commission v. Office of the Public Counsel
green
1 sentence2018See Brooks , 420 S.W.3d at 593 ; Matter of Missouri-American Water Co. , 516 S.W.3d at 823 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State ex rel. Hotel Continental v. Burton
green
1 sentence1998It rejected arguments that use of the TAC violated the filed rate doctrine because it “permitted the company to increase or decrease its rates without filing new rate schedules and thereby denies interested parties an opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of the changed rates.” Hotel Continental, 334 S.W.2d at 80 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Teleconnect Co. v. U.S. West Communications, Inc.
green
1 sentence1997A similar argument was advanced in Teleconnect, 508 N.W.2d at 644 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.