Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 8-1-2-88 (2026)
Repealed
✓ current as of May 2026
Formerly: Acts 1913, c.76, s.97b; Acts 1951, c.158, s.1; Acts 1971, P.L.82, SEC.1. As amended by P.L.118-1987, SEC.1; P.L.8-1993, SEC.113. Repealed by P.L.27-2006, SEC.62.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1982–2005 · leading case: Indiana Tel. Ass'n v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 477 N.E.2d 911 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985).
Indiana Tel. Ass'n v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 477 N.E.2d 911 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985). “Since 1951 telephone companies obtain their operating authority under a distinct procedure prescribed by a 1951 amendment to the Public Service Commission Act, Ind. Code Ann. § 8-1-2-88 (Burns 1982) (Acts 1951, ch.”
RAM Broad. of Indiana, Inc. v. MCI Airsignal of Indiana, Inc., 484 N.E.2d 26 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985). “Indiana Code § 8-1-2-88 provides that no telephone company shall render telephone service in an area where another company has been awarded a certificate of territorial authority, "except pursuant to a certificate granted by the commission, after notice of hearing and hearing,…”
RAM Broad. of Indiana, Inc. v. Digit. Paging Sys. of Indiana, Inc., 463 N.E.2d 1104 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984). “5 In the appellants' view, this distinetion has no basis in Indiana law since it is not made in Indiana Code section 8-1-2-88. The appellants are correct insofar as Indiana Code section 8-1-2-88 does not distinguish between RCCs and landline companies.”
Nextel West Corp. v. Indiana Util. Regulatory Comm'n, 831 N.E.2d 134 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “In the IUSF Order, the Commission wrote, "We recognize that the adoption of any state universal service mechanism must be done within the seope of our jurisdiction and pursuant to statutorily prescribed procedures.”
RAM Broad. of Indiana, Inc. v. Digit. Paging Sys. of Indiana, Inc., 464 N.E.2d 336 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984). “RAM argues that by adopting a subjective test, the Commission effectively abrogated to the FCC its duty to grant certificates only when public convenience and necessity are present, contrary, RAM asserts, to Indiana Code section 8-1-2-88. RAM has again misconstrued the…”
Indiana Bell Tel. Co. v. T. A. S. I., Inc., 433 N.E.2d 1195 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982). “The basic evidence received by the Commission may be summarized as follows: Originally, the Commission awarded a Certificate of Territorial Authority to Bell for Marion County, pursuant to Ind.Code 8-1-2-88(b), which provides in part: “The commission shall have the power by…”
Alexander v. Cottey, 801 N.E.2d 651 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “Ind.Code § 8-1-2-88. The legislature has established a process whereby individuals can bring complaints 'that any of the rates, tolls, charges, or schedules, or any joint rate or rates in which such petitioner is directly interested are in any respect unreasonable or unjustly…”
City of Gary v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., 711 N.E.2d 79 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “Ind.Code § 8-1-2-88 (1993). The IURC also determines whether a telephone company’s rates and charges are unjust and unreasonable.”
— Ind. Code § 8-1-2-88(a) — 1 case
Nextel West Corp. v. Indiana Util. Regulatory Comm'n, 831 N.E.2d 134 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “In the IUSF Order, the Commission wrote, "We recognize that the adoption of any state universal service mechanism must be done within the seope of our jurisdiction and pursuant to statutorily prescribed procedures.”
— Ind. Code § 8-1-2-88(b) — 3 cases
Indiana Tel. Ass'n v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 477 N.E.2d 911 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985). “Since 1951 telephone companies obtain their operating authority under a distinct procedure prescribed by a 1951 amendment to the Public Service Commission Act, Ind. Code Ann. § 8-1-2-88 (Burns 1982) (Acts 1951, ch.”
Indiana Bell Tel. Co. v. T. A. S. I., Inc., 433 N.E.2d 1195 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982). “The basic evidence received by the Commission may be summarized as follows: Originally, the Commission awarded a Certificate of Territorial Authority to Bell for Marion County, pursuant to Ind.Code 8-1-2-88(b), which provides in part: “The commission shall have the power by…”
RAM Broad. of Indiana, Inc. v. Digit. Paging Sys. of Indiana, Inc., 463 N.E.2d 1104 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984). “5 In the appellants' view, this distinetion has no basis in Indiana law since it is not made in Indiana Code section 8-1-2-88. The appellants are correct insofar as Indiana Code section 8-1-2-88 does not distinguish between RCCs and landline companies.”
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.