Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 77-3-21 (2026)

Hearing on adequacy of service afforded by certificate holder

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The commission may, after a hearing had upon due notice, make such findings as may be supported by proof as to whether any utility holding a certificate under the provisions of this article is rendering reasonably adequate service in any area covered by such utility's certificate. In the event the commission finds that such utility is not rendering reasonably adequate service, the commission may enter an order specifying in what particulars such utility has failed to render reasonably adequate service and order that such failure be corrected within a reasonable time, such time to be fixed in such order. If the utility so ordered to correct such a failure fails to comply with such order of the commission and the commission finds that cancellation of its certificate would be in the best interest of the consuming public served by the holder of the certificate, its certificate for the area affected may be revoked and cancelled by the commission.

Prior to any municipality exercising the power of eminent domain as provided in Section 77-3-17, the commission shall determine that the certificate of public convenience and necessity granted to the utility pursuant to Section 77-3-13 for the service area wherein such facilities are located, shall be cancelled as provided in this section. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to include service for water and sewage.

Notwithstanding Section 77-3-1(1), the commission shall have jurisdiction to investigate whether any municipality that holds a certificate to provide service greater than one (1) mile outside its municipal boundaries is providing reasonably adequate service. Following a hearing and upon making such a finding, the commission shall have full authority to enter any order authorized under this section, including canceling the certificate for the area that extends beyond the municipalities' boundaries.

Codes, 1942, § 7716-05; Laws, 1956, ch. 372, § 5; Laws, 1987, ch. 353, § 4; Laws, 1992, ch. 417, § 2, eff. 4/29/1992.

Amended by Laws, 2024, ch. 315, SB 2453,§ 1, eff. 4/8/2024.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases, 1973–2016 · leading case: City of Starkville v. 4-Cnty. Elec. Power Ass'n, 909 So. 2d 1094 (Miss. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of Starkville v. 4-Cnty. Elec. Power Ass'n, 909 So. 2d 1094 (Miss. 2005). · cites it 3× “See Miss.Code Ann. § 77-3-21. Starkville responded by inter alia challenging the constitutionality of the new legislation and seeking a transfer of the case to the Circuit Court of Oktibbeha County for a jury trial in order to determine compensatory as well as punitive damages…”

DEDEAUX Util. CO. v. City of Gulfport, 63 So. 3d 514 (Miss. 2011). · cites it 3× “” See Miss.Code Ann. § 77-3-21 (Rev.2009). As such, Dedeaux argues that Section 11-27-19, which provides that fair-market value is “established as of the date of the filing of the complaint[,]” is “unconstitutional when applied to the condemnation of assets of a privately owned…”

City of Gulfport v. ORANGE GROVE UTIL., 735 So. 2d 1041 (Miss. 1999). · cites it 2× “Miss.Code Ann. § 77-3-21 (Supp.1998) (emphasis added).”

City of Gulfport, Mississippi v. Dedeaux Util. Co., Inc., 187 So. 3d 139 (Miss. 2016). “Both parties focus chiefly on Paragraph 59 of this Court’s opinion in Dedeaux II: It is undisputed that Dedeaux operated the utility between December 3, 1996, and December 20, 2004.”

Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. City of Clarksdale, 288 So. 2d 9 (Miss. 1973). “Miss. Code Ann. § 77-3-21 (1972). Alternatively, MP&L contends that Clarksdale is without authority to condemn MP&L's physical facilities without condemning its franchise.”

Mississippi Tel. Corp. v. Mississippi Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 427 So. 2d 963 (Miss. 1983). “Miss.Code Ann. § 77-3-21 (1972). Under this procedure, the Commission must determine whether the Utility is rendering reasonably adequate service in any area covered by its certificate.”

Miss. Tel. Corp. v. Miss. Pub. Serv. Com'n, 427 So. 2d 963 (Miss. 1983). “Miss. Code Ann. § 77-3-21 (1972). Under this procedure, the Commission must determine whether the Utility is rendering reasonably adequate service in any area covered by its certificate.”

Mississippi Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Dixie Land & Water Co., 707 So. 2d 1086 (Miss. 1998). · cites it 2× “See Miss.Code Ann. § 77-3-21 (Supp.1997). However, this statute specifically states, “Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to include service for water and sewage.”

Dedeaux Util. Co., Inc. v. City of Gulfport, Mississippi (Miss. 2008). · cites it 3× “” See Miss. Code Ann. § 77-3-21 (Rev. 2009). As such, Dedeaux argues that Section 11-27-19, which provides that fair-market value is “established as of the date of 30 the filing of the complaint[,]” is “unconstitutional when applied to the condemnation of assets of a privately…”

City of Southaven, Mississippi v. 4-Cnty. Elec. Power Ass'n (Miss. 2002). · cites it 2× “Miss. Code Ann. § 77-3-21 (1972) (see also S.”

Mississippi Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Dixie Land & Water Co Inc (Miss. 1996). · cites it 2× “See Miss. Code Ann. § 77-3-21 (Supp. 1997). However, this statute specifically states, "Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to include service for water and sewage.”

City of Gulfport, Mississippi v. Orange Grove Utils., Inc. (Miss. 1997). · cites it 2× “Miss. Code Ann § 77-3-21 (Supp. 1998)(emphasis added).”

Show all 14 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.