Miss. Code Ann. § 77-3-33

Rates, classifications and service of utilities

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

Codes, 1942, § 7716-08; Laws, 1956, ch. 372, § 8.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1974–2024 · leading case: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Mississippi
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Mississippi (1982) scotus · cites it 2× “Miss. Code Ann. § 77-3-33 (2) (1973). It also requires the Public Service Commission to keep a "full and complete record" of all proceedings, § 77-3-63, and to "make and file its findings and order, and its opinion, if any," § 77-3-59.”
Mississippi Power Co. v. Mississippi Public Service Commission (2015) miss · cites it 2× “” See Miss.Code Ann. §§ 77-3-33 and 77-3-105(b) (Rev.”
Mississippi Power Co. v. Goudy (1984) miss “ROBERTSON, Justice, dissenting: No doubt there was a time when the consumer's relationship with a utility was purely private and as such was governed by the law of contracts. That day has passed.”
DEDEAUX UTILITY CO. v. City of Gulfport (2006) miss “" Miss.Code Ann. § 77-3-33(1) (Rev.2000). Finally, "[t]he rate base shall not include property donated to such utility without any consideration nor shall operating expenses include depreciation of such donated property.”
SOUTHEAST MISS. LEGAL SERV. CORP. v. Miss. Power Co. (1992) miss · cites it 2× “Miss. Code Ann. § 77-3-33 (1) (1972) mandates that utility rates should not "exceed that which is just and reasonable.”
Mississippi Power Co. v. MISS. PUB. SERV. COM'N (1974) miss · cites it 2× “The Court then stated that the Mississippi Legislature, by the enactment of Chapter 372, Laws of 1956, [ Miss. Code Ann. § 77-3-33 (1972)] [17] did not intend to impose upon the commission a requirement of the "fair value" formula with emphasis upon reproduction costs as a…”
STATE, EX REL. ALLAIN v. Miss. Pub. Serv. Com'n (1983) miss · cites it 2× “Miss. Code Ann. § 77-3-33 (1972), states in part: (3) Such utility may employ in the conduct of its business suitable and reasonable classifications of its service, patrons, rates, deposits and service charges.”
State Ex Rel. Pittman v. PUBLIC SERVICE COM'N (1989) miss “We fail to understand how a 25 percent windfall to MPC's shareholders furthers the statutory mandate of Miss. Code Ann., § 77-3-33(1) that rate charges be just and reasonable.”
Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc. v. Mississippi Public Service Commission (2009) miss “Miss.Code Ann. § 77-3-33 (Rev.2000). ¶ 11.”
State Ex Rel. Pittman v. MISS. PSC (1989) miss “Upon further study of this record this Court finds the questions to be (1) what is the appropriate method of allocating tax saving deductions realized in a consolidated tax return and (2) does the "stand alone" calculation utilized by Entex and the Public Service Commission…”
White Cypress Lakes Water, Inc. v. MISS. PSC (1997) miss “The Utility must "at a minium, receive enough to enable it to render efficient and continuous service." Mississippi Power Co.”
State ex rel. Allain v. Mississippi Public Service Commission (1983) miss “Miss.Code Ann. § 77-3-33 (1972), states in part: (3) Such utility may employ in the conduct of its business suitable and reasonable classifications of its service, patrons, rates, deposits and service charges.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 77-3-33(1) — 3 cases
DEDEAUX UTILITY CO. v. City of Gulfport (2006) miss “" Miss.Code Ann. § 77-3-33(1) (Rev.2000). Finally, "[t]he rate base shall not include property donated to such utility without any consideration nor shall operating expenses include depreciation of such donated property.”
State Ex Rel. Pittman v. PUBLIC SERVICE COM'N (1989) miss “We fail to understand how a 25 percent windfall to MPC's shareholders furthers the statutory mandate of Miss. Code Ann., § 77-3-33(1) that rate charges be 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.