filed rate doctrine in Mississippi

9 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2005 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Mississippi 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.

Followed or applied (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Willmut Gas & Oil Co.green miss · 1957 · cited in 5 Mississippi opinions naming this issue, 1999–2003 2 sentences 2003We held: Under the filed rate doctrine, any "filed rate" — that is, a rate approved by the governing regulatory agency — is "per se reasonable and unassailable in judicial proceedings brought by ratepayers." Wegoland Ltd. v. NYNEX Corp., 27 F.3d 17, 18 (2d Cir.1994); United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Willmut Gas & Oil Co., 231 Miss. 700, 718 , 97 So.2d 530, 535 (1957) (petitioner "can claim no rate as a legal right that is other than the filed rate, whether fixed or merely accepted by the Commission, and not even a court can authorize commerce in the commodity on other terms") (quoting Montana-Dakot 2003We held: Under the filed rate doctrine, any "filed rate" — that is, a rate approved by the governing regulatory agency — is "per se reasonable and unassailable in judicial proceedings brought by ratepayers." Wegoland Ltd. v. NYNEX Corp., 27 F.3d 17, 18 (2d Cir.1994); United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Willmut Gas & Oil Co., 231 Miss. 700, 718 , 97 So.2d 530, 535 (1957) (petitioner "can claim no rate as a legal right that is other than the filed rate, whether fixed or merely accepted by the Commission, and not even a court can authorize commerce in the commodity on other terms") (quoting Montana-Dakot	5	5
Wegoland Ltd. v. Nynex Corp.green ca2 · 1994 · cited in 5 Mississippi opinions naming this issue, 1999–2003 2 sentences 2003We held: Under the filed rate doctrine, any "filed rate" — that is, a rate approved by the governing regulatory agency — is "per se reasonable and unassailable in judicial proceedings brought by ratepayers." Wegoland Ltd. v. NYNEX Corp., 27 F.3d 17, 18 (2d Cir.1994); United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Willmut Gas & Oil Co., 231 Miss. 700, 718 , 97 So.2d 530, 535 (1957) (petitioner "can claim no rate as a legal right that is other than the filed rate, whether fixed or merely accepted by the Commission, and not even a court can authorize commerce in the commodity on other terms") (quoting Montana-Dakot 2002We held: Under the filed rate doctrine, any "filed rate"--that is, a rate approved by the governing regulatory agency--is "per se reasonable and unassailable in judicial proceedings brought by ratepayers." Wegoland Ltd. v. NYNEX Corp., 27 F.3d 17, 18 (2d Cir.1994); United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Willmut Gas & Oil Co., 231 Miss. 700, 718 , 97 So.2d 530, 535 (1957) (petitioner "can claim no rate as a legal right that is other than the filed rate, whether fixed or merely accepted by the Commission, and not even a court can authorize commerce in the commodity on other terms") (quoting Montana-Dakota	4	5
cluster 414451green ca2 · 1983 · cited in 3 Mississippi opinions naming this issue, 1999–2001 2 sentences 2001Co., 700 F.2d 785, 820 (2d Cir.1983) (filed rate doctrine not apply where the court was not called upon to even indirectly determine what a reasonable rate would have been); City of Kirkwood v. Union Elec. 2001Co., 700 F.2d 785, 820 (2d Cir.1983) (filed rate doctrine not apply where the court was not called upon to even indirectly determine what a reasonable rate would have been); City of Kirkwood v. Union Elec.	3	3
American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida v. Alexanderyellow miss · 2001 · cited in 2 Mississippi opinions naming this issue, 2002–2003 2 sentences 2003Co. of Florida v. Alexander, 769 818 So.2d 1073, 1084-85 (Miss.2001), for the proposition that the "filed-rate doctrine is applicable to cases in which a court is called upon to determine, either directly or indirectly, what a reasonable rate should be, or `second guess' the rate making agency." In Alexander , we held that the filed-rate doctrine did not bar the plaintiffs' claims against a secured lender and collateral protection insurer in an action to recover for overcharged premiums. ¶ 13. 2002*Co. of Florida v. Alexander, 818 So.2d 1073, 1084-85 (Miss. 2001), for the proposition that the “filed-rate doctrine is applicable to cases in which a court is called upon to determine, either directly or indirectly, what a reasonable rate should be, or ‘second guess’ the rate making agency.” In Alexander, we held that the filed-rate doctrine did not bar the plaintiffs' claims against a secured lender and collateral protection insurer in an action to recover for overcharged premiums. ¶13.	2	2
City of Kirkwood, a Municipal Corporation v. Union Electric Company, a Corporationgreen ca8 · 1982 · cited in 2 Mississippi opinions naming this issue, 1997–2001 2 sentences 2001Co., 671 F.2d 1173, 1179 (8th Cir.1982) (holding an award of antitrust damages for alleged creation and maintenance of an anti-competitive price squeeze did not conflict with regulatory agency's authority to oversee rates because the plaintiffs did not challenge those agency's reasonableness determination); Wegoland, Ltd. v. NYNEX Corp., 806 F.Supp. 1112, 1116 (S.D.N.Y.1992) (the filed rate doctrine was "arguably inapplicable" in cases where "courts are not asked to determine what a reasonable rate should be."). ¶ 44. 1997Co., 671 F.2d 1173, 1179 (8th Cir. 1982) (holding an award of antitrust damages for alleged creation and maintenance of an anti-competitive price squeeze did not conflict with regulatory agency's authority to oversee rates because the plaintiffs did not challenge those agency's reasonableness determination); Wegoland, Ltd. v. NYNEX Corp., 806 F. Supp. 1112, 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (the filed rate doctrine was "arguably inapplicable" in cases where "courts are not asked to determine what a reasonable rate should be."). ¶44.	2	2
Wegoland, Ltd. v. Nynex Corp.green nysd · 1992 · cited in 2 Mississippi opinions naming this issue, 1997–2001 2 sentences 2001Co., 671 F.2d 1173, 1179 (8th Cir.1982) (holding an award of antitrust damages for alleged creation and maintenance of an anti-competitive price squeeze did not conflict with regulatory agency's authority to oversee rates because the plaintiffs did not challenge those agency's reasonableness determination); Wegoland, Ltd. v. NYNEX Corp., 806 F.Supp. 1112, 1116 (S.D.N.Y.1992) (the filed rate doctrine was "arguably inapplicable" in cases where "courts are not asked to determine what a reasonable rate should be."). ¶ 44. 1997Co., 671 F.2d 1173, 1179 (8th Cir. 1982) (holding an award of antitrust damages for alleged creation and maintenance of an anti-competitive price squeeze did not conflict with regulatory agency's authority to oversee rates because the plaintiffs did not challenge those agency's reasonableness determination); Wegoland, Ltd. v. NYNEX Corp., 806 F. Supp. 1112, 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (the filed rate doctrine was "arguably inapplicable" in cases where "courts are not asked to determine what a reasonable rate should be."). ¶44.	2	2
Katz v. MCI Telecommunications Corp.green nyed · 1998 · cited in 2 Mississippi opinions naming this issue, 1997–2001 2 sentences 2001Corp., 14 F.Supp.2d. 271, 274 (E.D.N.Y.1998); Kutner v. Sprint Communications Co., 971 F.Supp. 302 (W.D.Tenn.1997)(filed-rate doctrine forbids courts from ordering relief that would contravene the filed rate). ¶ 33. 1997Corp., 14 F. Supp.2d. 271, 274 (E.D.N.Y. 1998); Kutner v. Sprint Communications Co., 971 F. Supp. 302 (W.D.	2	2

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
Gelb v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. green nysd · 1993 2 sentences 2001Id. 2001Id.	5	1997–2001
Gulf States Utilities Co. v. Alabama Power Co. green ca5 · 1987 2 sentences 2001Co. v. Alabama Power Co., 824 F.2d 1465 , 1472 (5th Cir.1987) (cause of action for fraudulent inducement will not be barred by the filed rate doctrine if it "would not interfere with the federal agency's ratemaking powers"); Litton Sys., Inc. v. American Tel. & Tel. 2001Co. v. Alabama Power Co., 824 F.2d 1465 , 1472 (5th Cir.1987) (cause of action for fraudulent inducement will not be barred by the filed rate doctrine if it “would not interfere with the federal agency’s rate-making powers”); Litton Sys., Inc. v. American Tel. & Tel.	3	1999–2001
AMERICAN BANKERS'INS. CO. OF FL. v. Wells green miss · 2001 2 sentences 2005Co. of Fla. v. Wells, 819 So.2d 1196 , 1203-04(¶ 23) (Miss.2001). 2005Co. of Fla. v. Wells, 819 So.2d 1196 , 1203-04(¶ 23) (Miss.2001).	2	2005–2005
Kutner v. Sprint Communications Co. LP green tnwd · 1997 2 sentences 2001Corp., 14 F.Supp.2d. 271, 274 (E.D.N.Y.1998); Kutner v. Sprint Communications Co., 971 F.Supp. 302 (W.D.Tenn.1997)(filed-rate doctrine forbids courts from ordering relief that would contravene the filed rate). ¶ 33. 1997Corp., 14 F. Supp.2d. 271, 274 (E.D.N.Y. 1998); Kutner v. Sprint Communications Co., 971 F. Supp. 302 (W.D.	2	1997–2001
Marcus v. AT & T CORP. green nysd · 1996 2 sentences 2001The action was dismissed based on the filed-rate doctrine because, "any subscriber who pays the filed rate has suffered no legally cognizable injury." Marcus, 938 F.Supp. at 1170 . 2001American Bankers cites Marcus v. AT & T Corp., 938 F.Supp. 1158 (S.D.N.Y.1996), aff'd, 138 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 1998) to illustrate the broad reach of the filed-rate doctrine.	2	1997–2001
Marcus v. AT&T Corp. green ca2 · 1998 2 sentences 2001American Bankers cites Marcus v. AT & T Corp., 938 F.Supp. 1158 (S.D.N.Y.1996), aff'd, 138 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 1998) to illustrate the broad reach of the filed-rate doctrine. 2001Marcus v. AT & T Corp., 138 F.3d 46 , 58 (2d Cir.1998).	2	1997–2001
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Hall green scotus · 1981 2 sentences 2001Arkansas La. Gas Co. v. Hall, 453 U.S. 1085 571, 583 n. 13, 101 S.Ct. 2925 , 69 L.Ed.2d 856 (1981). 2001Arkansas La. Gas Co. v. Hall, 453 U.S. 1085 571, 583 n. 13, 101 S.Ct. 2925 , 69 L.Ed.2d 856 (1981).	2	1997–2001
Morales v. ATTORNEYS'TITLE INS. FUND, INC. green flsd · 1997 1 sentence 2001Fund, Inc. 983 F.Supp. 1418 (S.D.Fla.1997); Calico Trailer Mfg.	1	2001–2001

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MS § Miss. Code Ann. § 83-5-33 (5) MS § Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-49 (3) MS § Miss. Code Ann. § 83-1-1 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

TX 42 (1992–2026) NY 24 (1993–2025) CA 20 (1998–2025) IL 17 (1989–2024) MO 12 (1997–2018) MS 9 (1997–2005) MN 9 (1995–2025) OR 7 (2003–2016) WA 7 (1998–2021) NJ 7 (2002–2009) WI 7 (1993–2007) NC 7 (1996–2009) AL 7 (1998–2013) PA 6 (2001–2011) MI 6 (1991–2017) NM 5 (1999–2026) CO 4 (1997–2018) NV 4 (1993–2012) HI 4 (2005–2013) LA 4 (1980–2008) KS 4 (1991–2024) TN 3 (2008–2010) AR 3 (2006–2011) IA 3 (1992–2004) MA 2 (2016–2017) DC 2 (1995–2006) OH 2 (1976–2015) OK 2 (2022–2022) NH 2 (1992–2002) CT 2 (1999–2024) SC 2 (2005–2015) AZ 2 (2002–2002)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check

Your account

Appearance