Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 462.25 (2026)

Rates; classification and regulations prescribed by commission to be prima facie lawful; express companies.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

RAILROADS

Act 300 of 1909

462.25 Rates; classification and regulations prescribed by commission to be prima facie lawful; express companies.

Sec. 25.

All rates, fares, charges, classification and joint rates fixed by the commission and all regulations, practices and services prescribed by the commission shall be in force and shall be prima facie, lawful and reasonable until finally found otherwise in an action brought for the purpose pursuant to the provisions of section 26 of this act, or until changed or modified by the commission as provided for in section 24 of this act.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any express company operating or doing business in the state of Michigan to charge or collect a greater amount for the transportation of merchandise or other property within this state than the rates and charges set forth and contained in the schedule of rates, tariffs and classifications on file at each station and office to or from which said rates, tariffs and classifications are intended to apply; a copy of which said schedule of rates, tariffs and classifications shall be filed with the railroad commission by the issuing carrier or some duly authorized agent or representative of such carrier;

(b) It shall be unlawful for any express company operating and doing business in the state of Michigan to discriminate in favor of or against any shipper or shippers or to refuse or fail to receive and transport proffered merchandise or other property, providing such merchandise or other property is a proper subject for shipment by express and in proper condition at the time of presentation for shipment from any point where such express company shall maintain or conduct an office or station, or to or from any junction point or points where the line of such express company intersects with the line of any other express company or to or from any common terminal to any point on its own line, and the charge and compensation for the transportation of such merchandise or other property by 2 or more express companies shall not exceed by 30 per cent the maximum charge for the same distance on any 1 line, such maximum charge being determined as hereinafter prescribed;

(c) All express companies operating within this state shall publish and continue in force and effect through or joint rates between all points at which offices are maintained on the line of all express companies operating within the state of Michigan: Provided, That such express companies may divide charges for transportation in such a manner as to allow participating carriers an agreed minimum proportion when the division of such charges on a mileage basis would not allow a sufficient minimum;

(d) The following schedule of rates shall be the present maximum basic general merchandise schedule chargeable within the state of Michigan:

1 to 55 miles inclusive, 50 cents per 100 pounds;

56 to 75 miles inclusive, 55 cents per 100 pounds;

76 to 85 miles inclusive, 60 cents per 100 pounds;

86 to 95 miles inclusive, 65 cents per 100 pounds;

96 to 105 miles inclusive, 70 cents per 100 pounds;

106 to 130 miles inclusive, 75 cents per 100 pounds;

131 to 150 miles inclusive, 80 cents per 100 pounds;

151 to 170 miles inclusive, 85 cents per 100 pounds;

171 to 190 miles inclusive, 90 cents per 100 pounds;

191 to 210 miles inclusive, 1 dollar per 100 pounds;

211 to 230 miles inclusive, 1 dollar 10 cents per 100 pounds;

231 to 250 miles inclusive, 1 dollar 20 cents per 100 pounds;

251 to 275 miles inclusive, 1 dollar 30 cents per 100 pounds;

276 to 300 miles inclusive, 1 dollar 40 cents per 100 pounds;

(e) The graduated table or schedule of charges now in force relating to shipments of merchandise or other property in quantities less than 100 pounds shall continue in operation except as hereinafter provided;

(f) The Michigan railroad commission shall have control and supervision over all express companies operating within this state, and upon complaint made to it or upon its own motion and after hearing had thereon, in accordance with the rules now in force relative to hearings on complaints by and against common carriers, may from time to time within its discretion change, alter and amend the maximum schedule of rates hereinbefore set forth, and may from time to time upon proper application or upon its own motion and hearing had thereon, as above prescribed, change, alter and amend any graduated table or schedule of charges on merchandise or other property transported or to be transported, the weight of which is less than 100 pounds;

(g) Any express company operating or doing business within the state of Michigan, upon receipt of any property or merchandise, providing such property or merchandise is a proper subject for shipment by express and in proper condition at time of presentation, shall unless otherwise requested by the shipper forward same via the nearest and most practical route, having in mind the frequency of train service at different junction points.

History: 1909, Act 300, Eff. Sept. 1, 1909 ;-- Am. 1911, Act 139, Imd. Eff. Apr. 25, 1911 ;-- CL 1915, 8133 ;-- CL 1929, 11041 ;-- CL 1948, 462.25

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 113 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1969–2025 · leading case: Detroit Edison Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 562 N.W.2d 224 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Detroit Edison Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 562 N.W.2d 224 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “These appeals concern several aspects of the psc’s decision. There is considerable overlap in the arguments of the appellants, particularly concem *373 ing the psc’s exercise of authority regarding a “demand-side management” (dsm) program requested by Detroit Edison.”

Consumers Power Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 596 N.W.2d 126 (Mich. 1999). · cites it 2× “" MCL 460.54; MSA 22.4. [8] All rates, fares, charges, classifications and joint rates fixed by the PSC and all regulations, practices and services prescribed by the PSC are deemed prima facie lawful and reasonable.”

Attorney Gen. v. Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 642 N.W.2d 691 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “On that same date, the mpsc issued another order dismissing with prejudice Edison’s 2000 PSCR plan application in MPSC Case No.”

Ameritech Michigan v. Psc Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 658 N.W.2d 849 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “Pursuant to MCL 462.25 ... all rates, fares, charges, classification and joint rates, regulations, practices, and services prescribed by the PSC are presumed, prima facie, to be lawful and reasonable.”

Great Wolf Lodge of Traverse City, LLC v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 489 Mich. 27 (Mich. 2011). · cites it 2× “12 MCL 462.25; see also Mich Consol Gas Co v Pub Serv Comm, 389 Mich 624 , 635- 636; 209 NW2d 210 (1973).”

Michigan Consol. Gas Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 209 N.W.2d 210 (Mich. 1973). · cites it 2× “It bases this claim on the following statutory language: MCLA 462.25; MSA 22.44: "All rates, fares, charges * * * fixed by the commis *636 sion and all regulations, practices and services prescribed by the commission shall be in force and shall be prima facie, lawful and…”

in Re Application of Consumers Energy to Increase Elec. Rates, 891 N.W.2d 871 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “On June 28, 2013, the PSC issued an order approving Consumers Energy’s continuation of the AMI program and approving Consumers Energy’s opt-out tariffs.”

Attorney Gen. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 713 N.W.2d 290 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “We consolidated the appeals for the purposes of hearing and decision.”

In re Consumers Energy Co., 291 Mich. App. 106 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “For the reasons set forth below, we reject all but one of these claims of error: We agree with the objection that the PSC’s having allowed Consumers to provide the funding for the experts was wrong but conclude that the error was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm the PSC’s order…”

Attorney Gen. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n No 2, 602 N.W.2d 225 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “On April 10, 1997, the PSC issued an order granting in part and denying in part the petitions for rehearing.”

In re Consumers Energy Co., 279 Mich. App. 180 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “In addition, the Attorney General challenges the PSC’s approval of an equalization mechanism for pension and other post-employment benefits as comprising improper retroactive ratemaking.”

In Re Indiana Michigan Power Co., 738 N.W.2d 289 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “bly or imprudently with respect to the handling of SNF issues; accepted IMPCo’s assertion that to cease paying SNF fees to the DOE could result in consequences such as suspension of IMPCo’s license to operate its nuclear facility; disagreed with appellants’ contention that…”

Show all 113 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 462.25(1) — 1 case

Attorney Gen. v. MPSC, 618 N.W.2d 904 (Mich. 2000).

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.