Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 484 / Act 179 of 1991
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2203 (2026)

Commencement of case; filing; emergency relief order; burden of proof; investigation; hearings; judicial review; continuation of service; posting security; alternative dispute process; additional relief; motion for stay.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MICHIGAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT


Act 179 of 1991


484.2203 Commencement of case; filing; emergency relief order; burden of proof; investigation; hearings; judicial review; continuation of service; posting security; alternative dispute process; additional relief; motion for stay.

Sec. 203.

    (1) Upon receipt of an application or complaint filed under this act, or on its own motion, the commission may conduct an investigation, hold hearings, and issue its findings and order under the contested hearings provisions of the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328.

    (2) If a complaint filed under this section alleges facts that warrant emergency relief, the complainant may request an emergency relief order. On the date of filing, the complaint and request for emergency relief shall be hand-delivered to the respondent at its principal place of business in Michigan. The commission shall allow 5 business days for a filing in response to the request for emergency relief. The commission shall review the complaint, the request for emergency relief, the response, and all supporting materials and determine whether to deny the request for emergency relief or to conduct an initial evidentiary hearing. The initial evidentiary hearing shall be conducted within 5 business days from the date of the notice of hearing and the commission shall issue an order granting or denying the request for emergency relief. An order for emergency relief may require a party to act or refrain from action to protect competition. Any action required by an order for emergency relief shall be technically feasible and economically reasonable and the respondent shall be given a reasonable period of time to comply with the order. At the hearing for emergency relief, the respondent has the burden of showing that the order is not technically feasible and not economically reasonable. If the commission finds that extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant expedited review before the commission's issuance of a final order, it shall set a schedule providing for the issuance of a partial final order as to all or part of the issues for which emergency relief was granted within 90 days of the issuance of the emergency relief order.

    (3) An order for emergency relief may be granted under subsection (2) if the commission finds all of the following:

    (a) That the party has demonstrated exigent circumstances that warrant emergency relief.

    (b) That the party seeking relief will likely succeed on the merits.

    (c) That the party will suffer irreparable harm in its ability to serve customers if emergency relief is not granted.

    (d) That the order is not adverse to the public interest.

    (4) The commission may require the complainant to post a bond in an amount sufficient to make whole the respondent in the event that the order for emergency relief is later found to have been erroneously granted.

    (5) An order for emergency relief shall expire upon the sooner of any of the following:

    (a) Ninety days after its issuance.

    (b) Issuance of the commission's partial final order.

    (c) An earlier date set by the commission. Notwithstanding this subsection, the commission may extend the emergency relief order to a date no later than the date on which the final order in the proceeding is issued.

    (6) An order granting or denying emergency relief under subsection (2) shall be subject to immediate review in the court of appeals as a matter of right by the party aggrieved. The review shall be de novo and shall comply with Michigan court rule 7.211(c)(6). The court may stay an order granting emergency relief upon the posting of a bond or other security in an amount and on terms set by the court. Regardless of whether an appeal is made under this subsection, the commission shall proceed with the case and issue a final order as otherwise required under this section.

    (7) An application or complaint filed under this section shall contain all information, testimony, exhibits, or other documents and information within the person's possession on which the person intends to rely to support the application or complaint. Applications or complaints that do not meet the requirements of this subsection shall be dismissed or suspended pending the receipt by the commission of the required information. If the complainant or applicant requires information in the possession of the respondent, not within the complainant's or applicant's possession, the commission may allow a reasonable opportunity for discovery to allow the complainant or applicant to provide all relevant information, testimony, exhibits, or other documents on which the complainant or applicant intends to rely to support its application or complaint.

    (8) The burden of proving a case filed under this act is with the party filing the application or complaint.

    (9) In a contested case under this section, the commission can administer oaths, certify all official acts, and compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of papers, books, accounts, documents, and testimony.

    (10) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the commission shall issue a final order in a case filed under this section within 90 days from the date the application or complaint is filed.

    (11) Except as provided for a hearing involving a request for emergency relief, if a hearing is required, the applicant or complainant shall publish a notice of hearing as required by the commission within 7 days of the date the application or complaint was filed or as required by the commission. The first hearing shall be held within 10 days after the date of the notice. If a hearing is held, the commission shall have 180 days from the date the application or complaint was filed to issue its final order. If the principal parties of record agree that the complexity of issues involved requires additional time, the commission may have up to 210 days from the date the application or complaint was filed to issue its final order. If the application or complaint is subject to section 203a, the commission shall have an additional 60 days to issue its final order.

    (12) An order of the commission under this act is subject to appellate review as of right in the court of appeals. The appeal shall be initiated by the filing of a claim of appeal with the court of appeals within 30 days of the issuance of an order or within 30 days of an order issued on a petition for rehearing of an order.

    (13) If a complaint is filed under this section by a provider against another provider, the provider of service shall not discontinue service during the period of the contested case, including the alternative dispute process, if the provider receiving the service has posted a surety bond, provided an irrevocable letter of credit, or provided other adequate security in an amount and on a form as determined by the commission.

    (14) Except if there is a request for emergency relief under this section, if the complaint filed under this section involves an interconnection dispute between providers, the commission shall require the parties to utilize the alternative dispute process under section 203a.

    (15) In addition to any other relief provided by this act, the commission or a party may seek to compel compliance with a commission order by proceedings in mandamus, injunction, or by other appropriate civil remedies in the circuit court or other court of proper jurisdiction.

    (16) Upon the filing of a motion for stay, the commission may, on terms as it considers just, stay the effect or enforcement of an order, except an order regarding rates or cost studies. A motion for stay, including a request for setting the amount of any appeal bond, are governed by the provisions for obtaining a stay of a civil action set forth in R 7.209 of the Michigan court rules. The commission shall decide a motion for stay within 10 days from the date the motion is filed with the commission.

History: 1991, Act 179, Eff. Jan. 1, 1992 ;-- Am. 1995, Act 216, Imd. Eff. Nov. 30, 1995 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 295, Imd. Eff. July 17, 2000 ;-- Am. 2005, Act 235, Imd. Eff. Nov. 22, 2005

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1995–2004 · leading case: Rinaldo's Constr. Corp. v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 559 N.W.2d 647 (Mich. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rinaldo's Constr. Corp. v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 559 N.W.2d 647 (Mich. 1997). · cites it 3× “Since Valentine , the Legislature has repealed the statute providing appeal to the *70 circuit court and replaced it with MCL 484.2203; MSA 22.1469(203), which provides for appeal of MPSC final orders directly to the Court of Appeals.”
Ameritech Michigan v. Psc Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 658 N.W.2d 849 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “MCL 484.2203(3). She failed to meet that burden.”
In Re Complaint of Knox, 660 N.W.2d 777 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “MCL 484.2203(16), as amended by 2000 PA 295 .”
Verizon North Inc. v. John G. Strand, Coast to Coast Telecomm., Inc., 367 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2004). “See Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 484.2203 , 484.2303(2), 484.”
Mayor of Lansing v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 666 N.W.2d 298 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “26(8); MCL 484.2203(8). “A decision of the psc is unlawful when it involves an erroneous interpretation or application of law, and unreasonable when it is unsupported by the evidence.”
In Re Michigan Cable Telecomm. Ass'n Complaint, 609 N.W.2d 854 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “MCL 484.2203(3); MSA 22.1469(203)(3); 1992 AACS, R 460.”
In Re Procedure & Format for Filing Tariffs Under the Michigan Telecomm. Act, 534 N.W.2d 194 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “The appeals at bar challenge the psc’s reasoning with respect to which types of services constitute basic local exchange services, access services, and toll services, as well as which services constitute "new” telecommunications services under MCL 484.”
In Re Sprint Commc'ns Co., 592 N.W.2d 825 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “Finally, the MPSC's order directed the MPSC's executive secretary to place a copy of the order in the MPSC case file used in the MPSC's consultations with the FCC pursuant to the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and to send a copy of the order to the Michigan Attorney…”
Ameritech Michigan v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 583 N.W.2d 458 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “II Ameritech contends that this Court must reverse the psc’s 1996 orders requiring full implementation of intraLATA toll dialing parity.”
In Re Canales Complaint, 637 N.W.2d 236 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “Section 203 of the mta, MCL 484.2203, requires that contested case hearings be conducted in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), MCL 24.”
In Re Filing Requirements for Complaints & Applications Filed Under the Michigan Telecomm. Act, 534 N.W.2d 234 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “[MCL 484.2203; MSA 22.1469(203).] On July 22, 1992, the psc issued an order and notice of opportunity to comment, inviting interested parties to submit comments regarding proposed uniform filing standards for applications and complaints under the act.”
Verizon North, Inc. v. Engler, 205 F. Supp. 2d 765 (E.D. Mich. 2002). · cites it 2× “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2203 (2). Defendants allege that increasing Plaintiffs local rates would put its *769 rates at par with its TSLRIC and thereby result in a just and reasonable rate under sections 102(y), 304a, and 321, despite having to lower its CCLC in accord with…”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2203(1) — 1 case
Michigan Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 542 N.W.2d 279 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2203(16) — 1 case
In Re Complaint of Knox, 660 N.W.2d 777 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “MCL 484.2203(16), as amended by 2000 PA 295 .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2203(3) — 2 cases
Ameritech Michigan v. Psc Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 658 N.W.2d 849 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “MCL 484.2203(3). She failed to meet that burden.”
In Re Michigan Cable Telecomm. Ass'n Complaint, 609 N.W.2d 854 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “MCL 484.2203(3); MSA 22.1469(203)(3); 1992 AACS, R 460.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2203(5) — 1 case
In Re Procedure & Format for Filing Tariffs Under the Michigan Telecomm. Act, 534 N.W.2d 194 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “The appeals at bar challenge the psc’s reasoning with respect to which types of services constitute basic local exchange services, access services, and toll services, as well as which services constitute "new” telecommunications services under MCL 484.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2203(7) — 5 cases
Rinaldo's Constr. Corp. v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 559 N.W.2d 647 (Mich. 1997). “Since Valentine , the Legislature has repealed the statute providing appeal to the *70 circuit court and replaced it with MCL 484.2203; MSA 22.1469(203), which provides for appeal of MPSC final orders directly to the Court of Appeals.”
In Re Complaint of Knox, 660 N.W.2d 777 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “MCL 484.2203(16), as amended by 2000 PA 295 .”
In Re Sprint Commc'ns Co., 592 N.W.2d 825 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “Finally, the MPSC's order directed the MPSC's executive secretary to place a copy of the order in the MPSC case file used in the MPSC's consultations with the FCC pursuant to the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and to send a copy of the order to the Michigan Attorney…”
Ameritech Michigan v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 583 N.W.2d 458 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “II Ameritech contends that this Court must reverse the psc’s 1996 orders requiring full implementation of intraLATA toll dialing parity.”
Ameritech Michigan v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 592 N.W.2d 825 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2203(8) — 1 case
Mayor of Lansing v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 666 N.W.2d 298 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “26(8); MCL 484.2203(8). “A decision of the psc is unlawful when it involves an erroneous interpretation or application of law, and unreasonable when it is unsupported by the evidence.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2203(l) — 1 case
Rinaldo's Constr. Corp. v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 559 N.W.2d 647 (Mich. 1997). “Since Valentine , the Legislature has repealed the statute providing appeal to the *70 circuit court and replaced it with MCL 484.2203; MSA 22.1469(203), which provides for appeal of MPSC final orders directly to the Court of Appeals.”
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.