Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2308 (2026)
Repealed. 2011, Act 58, Imd. Eff. June 14, 2011.
✓ 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
484.2308 Repealed. 2011, Act 58, Imd. Eff. June 14, 2011.
Repealed. 2011, Act 58, Imd. Eff. June 14, 2011.
Compiler's Notes:
The repealed section pertained to use of basic local exchange or access rates or proceeds from sale, lease, or transfer of rate acquired assets.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1995–2000 · leading case: In Re Complaint of Michigan Cable Telecomm. Ass'n Against Ameritech Michigan, 615 N.W.2d 255 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
In Re Complaint of Michigan Cable Telecomm. Ass'n Against Ameritech Michigan, 615 N.W.2d 255 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “As the mpsc observed, mta subsection 308(1), MCL 484.2308(1); MSA 22.1469(308)(1), “prohibits using local exchange or access revenues or rate acquired *371 assets to subsidize the costs of other products or services.”
In Re Filing Requirements for Complaints & Applications Filed Under the Michigan Telecomm. Act, 534 N.W.2d 234 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “In addition, the psc persuasively argues that total company information is relevant to questions regarding the subsidization of one service by another, which is disallowed by § 308(1), MCL 484.2308(1); MSA 22.1469(308)(1). Although the test for whether a service is being…”
Michigan Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 542 N.W.2d 279 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “On October 26, 1992, City Signal filed a complaint with the commission, alleging that Michigan Bell’s bid did not include long-run incremental costs as required by § 308(1) of the act, MCL 484.2308(1); MSA 22.1469(308)(1), and did not include all appropriate related costs, in…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2308(1) — 3 cases
In Re Complaint of Michigan Cable Telecomm. Ass'n Against Ameritech Michigan, 615 N.W.2d 255 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “As the mpsc observed, mta subsection 308(1), MCL 484.2308(1); MSA 22.1469(308)(1), “prohibits using local exchange or access revenues or rate acquired *371 assets to subsidize the costs of other products or services.”
In Re Filing Requirements for Complaints & Applications Filed Under the Michigan Telecomm. Act, 534 N.W.2d 234 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “In addition, the psc persuasively argues that total company information is relevant to questions regarding the subsidization of one service by another, which is disallowed by § 308(1), MCL 484.2308(1); MSA 22.1469(308)(1). Although the test for whether a service is being…”
Michigan Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 542 N.W.2d 279 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “On October 26, 1992, City Signal filed a complaint with the commission, alleging that Michigan Bell’s bid did not include long-run incremental costs as required by § 308(1) of the act, MCL 484.2308(1); MSA 22.1469(308)(1), and did not include all appropriate related costs, in…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2308(2) — 1 case
In Re Complaint of Michigan Cable Telecomm. Ass'n Against Ameritech Michigan, 615 N.W.2d 255 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “As the mpsc observed, mta subsection 308(1), MCL 484.2308(1); MSA 22.1469(308)(1), “prohibits using local exchange or access revenues or rate acquired *371 assets to subsidize the costs of other products or services.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2308(3) — 1 case
In Re Complaint of Michigan Cable Telecomm. Ass'n Against Ameritech Michigan, 615 N.W.2d 255 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “As the mpsc observed, mta subsection 308(1), MCL 484.2308(1); MSA 22.1469(308)(1), “prohibits using local exchange or access revenues or rate acquired *371 assets to subsidize the costs of other products or services.”
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.