Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 237.06 (2026)

Rates And Deposits

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It shall be the duty of every telephone company to furnish reasonably adequate service and facilities for the accommodation of the public, and its rates, tolls, and charges shall be fair and reasonable for the intrastate use thereof. All unreasonable rates, tolls, and charges are hereby declared to be unlawful. Any telephone company may include in its charges a reasonable deposit fee for facilities furnished.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1981–2012 · leading case: Application of Nw. Bell Tel., 371 N.W.2d 563 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Application of Nw. Bell Tel., 371 N.W.2d 563 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 8× “See Minn.Stat. §§ 237.06 and 237.075, subd. 6 (1984).”

In Re Qwest's Wholesale Serv. Quality Standards, 702 N.W.2d 246 (Minn. 2005). · cites it 2× “] Minnesota Statutes § 237.06 provides: It shall be the duty of every telephone company to furnish reasonably adequate service and facilities for the accommodation of the public, and its rates, tolls, and charges shall be fair and reasonable for the intrastate use thereof.”

In Re Cont'l Tel. Co. of Minnesota, Inc., 358 N.W.2d 400 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 237.06 (1982). The PUC cannot arbitrarily disregard the reasonableness of the interim rates.”

State ex rel. Spannaus v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 304 N.W.2d 872 (Minn. 1981). · cites it 3× “Minn.Stat. § 237.06 (1980) requires telephone companies to furnish reasonably adequate services and facilities at fair and reasonable rates “for the intrastate use thereof,” expressly declaring unreasonable rates to be unlawful.”

Qwest Corp. v. Minnesota Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 684 F.3d 721 (8th Cir. 2012). “” The district court agreed with Qwest that the commission did “not have authority under federal law to set rates for Section 271 Elements,” but concluded the commission “was asserting authority under state law in the [order].”

Henry v. Minnesota Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 392 N.W.2d 209 (Minn. 1986). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 237.06 (1984). A telephone company petitioning for a rate change bears the burden of proving the rate change it proposes is “just and reasonable.”

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.