Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 237.081 (2026)

Investigation

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Subdivision 1.Commission investigation.

Whenever the commission believes that a service is inadequate or cannot be obtained or that an investigation of any matter relating to any telephone service should for any reason be made, it may on its own motion investigate the service or matter with or without notice, except that the commission shall give notice to a telephone company before it investigates the level of rates charged by the company.

Subd. 1a.Complaint investigation.

Upon a complaint made against a telephone company by any other provider of telephone service, by the governing body of a political subdivision, or by no fewer than five percent or 100, whichever is the lesser number, of the subscribers or spouses of subscribers of the particular telephone company, that any of the rates, tolls, tariffs, charges, or schedules, or any regulation, measurement, practice, act, or omission affecting or relating to the production, transmission, delivery, or furnishing of telephone service or any service in connection with telephone service is in any respect unreasonable, insufficient, or unjustly discriminatory, or that any service is inadequate or cannot be obtained, the commission, after notice to the telephone company, shall investigate the matters raised by the complaint.

Subd. 2.Procedure after investigation.

(a) If, after making an investigation under subdivision 1 or 1a, the commission finds that a significant factual issue raised has not been resolved to its satisfaction, the commission shall follow the appropriate procedure prescribed by this subdivision.

(b) For an investigation concerning the reasonableness of the rates for noncompetitive services of a telephone company whose general revenue requirement is determined under section 237.075, the commission shall order the company to initiate a rate proceeding in accordance with section 237.075. The commission shall allow the company at least 120 days after the date of the commission's order to initiate the proceeding.

(c) For other investigations, the commission shall order that a contested case hearing be conducted under chapter 14 unless the complainant, the telephone company, and the commission agree that an expedited hearing under section 237.61 is appropriate.

Subd. 3.

[Repealed, 1989 c 74 s 26]

Subd. 4.Establishment of rate and price.

Whenever the commission finds, after a proceeding under subdivision 2, that (1) a service that can be reasonably demanded cannot be obtained, (2) that any rate, toll, tariff, charge, or schedule, or any regulation, measurement, practice, act, or omission affecting or relating to the production, transmission, delivery, or furnishing of telephone service or any service in connection with telephone service, is in any respect unreasonable, insufficient, or unjustly discriminatory, or (3) that any service is inadequate, the commission shall make an order respecting the tariff, regulation, act, omission, practice, or service that is just and reasonable and, if applicable, shall establish just and reasonable rates and prices.

Subd. 5.Service; notice.

A copy of an order issued under this section must be served upon the person against whom it runs or the person's attorney, and notice of the order must be given to the other parties to the proceedings or their attorneys.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 15 cases, 1982–2005 · leading case: In Re Qwest's Wholesale Serv. Quality Standards, 702 N.W.2d 246 (Minn. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Qwest's Wholesale Serv. Quality Standards, 702 N.W.2d 246 (Minn. 2005). · cites it 10× “According to the MPUC, because the legislature could not address every nuance of utility regulation, the legislature has granted the MPUC broad authority.”

Application of Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 367 N.W.2d 655 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “Respondent Minnesota Business Utility Users Council argues Minn.Stat. § 237.081, subd. 4 (1982) grants the Commission prior approval authority in this situation.”

In Re the Minnesota Pub. Utils. Comm'n's Initiation of Summary Investigation, 417 N.W.2d 274 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “In so doing, we rely upon the following language in Henry : Minn.Stat. § 237.081, subd. 1 (1984) provides the MPUC may, on its own motion, summarily investigate any matter relating to any service it believes “for any reason” should be examined.”

In Re the Deregulation of the Installation & Maint. of Inside Wiring, 420 N.W.2d 650 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 8× “Minn.Stat. § 237.081 (1986), entitled “Summary Investigations of Inadequate Service,” provides: Subdivision 1.”

In Re Qwest's Wholesale Serv. Quality Standards, 678 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “1 (2002), ("After a proceeding under section 237.081, the commission may issue an order administratively assessing monetary penalties for knowing and intentional violations of .”

Henry v. Minnesota Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 392 N.W.2d 209 (Minn. 1986). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 237.081, subd. 1 (1984) provides the MPUC may, on its own motion, summarily investigate any matter relating to any service it believes “for any reason" should be examined.”

In Re the Request for Serv. in Qwest's Tofte Exch., 666 N.W.2d 391 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 6× “See Minn.Stat. § 237.081, subd. la (2002) (providing that MPUC “shall investigate the matters raised” in complaint made against telephone company that “service is inadequate or cannot be obtained”).”

Matter of Intra-Lata Equal Access, 532 N.W.2d 583 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “The Commission is authorized by statute to initiate summary investigations and to issue orders to telephone companies on any matter relating to telephone service.”

In Re Consol. Appeal From an Order of the Minnesota Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 365 N.W.2d 341 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 237.081, subd. 1 (1984) allows the MPUC, on its own motion, to make a summary investigation when it believes any service may be inadequate.”

Petition of New Ulm Telecom, Inc., 399 N.W.2d 111 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 12× “Section 237.12 authorizes the connection. of a second telephone company when it is in the interest of public convenience and necessity and when the connection “will not result in irreparable injury to the telephone system so compelled to be connected.”

Qwest Corp. v. Minnesota Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 427 F.3d 1061 (8th Cir. 2005). · cites it 5× “MPUC asserts that it has statutory authority to order restitution under Minn. Stat. §§ 237.081 , 237.461, 237.462, and 237.”

Occhino v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 675 F.2d 220 (8th Cir. 1982). · cites it 2× “” 10 The DPS stresses that under Minn.Stat. § 237.081, “the burden was placed on Occhino to file a formal complaint with the PUC, which he failed to do” and asserts that Occhino, in naming the DPS instead of the PUC as a defendant, sued “the wrong party.”

Show all 15 citing cases →

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.