Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 386.420 (2026)

Persons entitled to be heard

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

386.420. Persons entitled to be heard — commission to make report, when — depositions authorized — may enforce attendance at hearings — record of proceedings to be kept — detailed reconciliation required, when. — 1. At the time fixed for any hearing before the commission or a commissioner, or the time to which the same may have been continued, the complainant, the public counsel and the corporation, person or public utility complained of, and such corporations and persons as the commission may allow to intervene, shall be entitled to be heard and to introduce evidence. The commission shall issue process to enforce the attendance of all necessary witnesses.

2. Whenever an investigation shall be made by the commission, it shall be its duty, to make a report in writing in respect thereto, which shall state the conclusions of the commission, together with its decision, order or requirement in the premises. The commission or any commissioner or any party may, in any investigation or hearing before the commission, cause the deposition of witnesses residing within or without the state to be taken in the manner prescribed by law for like depositions in civil actions in the circuit courts of this state and to that end may compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of books, waybills, documents, papers, memoranda and accounts. Witnesses whose depositions are taken as provided in this section and the officer taking the same shall severally be entitled to the same fees as are paid for like services in the circuit courts of this state.

3. If an order cannot, in the judgment of the commission, be complied with within thirty days, the commission may grant and prescribe such additional time as in its judgment is reasonably necessary to comply with the order, and may, on application and for good cause shown, extend the time for compliance fixed in its order.

4. A full and complete record shall be made of all proceedings before the commission or any commissioner on any formal hearing had, and all testimony shall be taken down by a reporter appointed by the commission, and the parties shall be entitled to be heard in person or by attorney. Preparation of a printed transcript may be waived by unanimous consent of all the parties. In case of an action to review any order or decision of the commission, a transcript of such testimony, together with all exhibits or copies thereof introduced and all information secured by the commission on its own initiative and considered by it in rendering its order or decision, and of the pleadings, record and proceedings in the cause, shall constitute the record of the commission; provided, that on review of an order or decision of the commission, the appellant and the commission may stipulate that a certain question or questions alone and a specified portion only of the evidence shall be certified to the reviewing court for its judgment, whereupon such stipulation and the question or questions and the evidence therein specified shall constitute the record on review. In any proceeding resulting in the establishment of new rates for a public utility that is not classified as a price-cap or competitive company, the commission shall cause to be prepared, with the assistance of the parties to such proceeding, and shall approve, after allowing the parties a reasonable opportunity to provide written input, a detailed reconciliation containing the dollar value and rate or charge impact of each contested issue decided by the commission, and the customer class billing determinants used by the commission to calculate the rates and charges approved by the commission in such proceeding. Such information shall be sufficient to permit a reviewing court and the commission on remand from a reviewing court to determine how the public utility's rates and charges, including the rates and charges for each customer class, would need to be temporarily and, if applicable, permanently adjusted to provide customers or the public utility with any monetary relief that may be due in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 386.520. In the event there is any dispute over the value of a particular issue or the correctness of a billing determinant, the commission shall also include in the reconciliation a quantification of the dollar value and rate or charge impact associated with the dispute.

--------

(RSMo 1939 § 5688, A.L. 1977 H.B. 42 & 157, A.L. 1978 H.B. 1634, A.L. 1990 H.B. 1315, A.L. 2011 S.B. 48)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 5232; 1919 § 10520

Effective 7-01-11

CROSS REFERENCE:

Administrative procedure and review, Chap. 536

(1960) Commission did not abuse its discretion in denying application of water user and protestant against allowance of water rate increase to be made a party to the proceedings since he had no interest in the case different from that of the general public. Smith v. Public Service Commission of Missouri (Mo.), 336 S.W.2d 491.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases, 1956–2019 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Monsanto Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 716 S.W.2d 791 (Mo. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State Ex Rel. Monsanto Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 716 S.W.2d 791 (Mo. 1986). · cites it 14× “The Industrials expressly reserved this issue for review in their 1984 Stipulation and Agreement.”

State Ex Rel. Laclede Gas Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of the State, 103 S.W.3d 813 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 9× “090, RSMo 2000, which applies to “[e]very decision and order in a contested case,” has been used by Missouri courts to fill in the gaps of section 386.420, RSMo 2000. State ex rel.”

State Ex Rel. Cnty. of Jackson v. Missouri Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 985 S.W.2d 400 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 6× “diction; (2) the issues decided in the declaratory judgment were not ripe for judicial review; (3) the issues addressed in the declaratory judgment were moot; (4) the declaratory judgment improperly addressed anticipated quasi-judicial errors; and (5) the declaratory judgment…”

State Ex Rel. Jackson Cnty. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 532 S.W.2d 20 (Mo. 1976). · cites it 4× “Similar language is likewise contained in Section 386.420(1), relating to how hearings are to be conducted before the Commission.”

At & T Commc'ns of the Sw., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of the State, 62 S.W.3d 545 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 5× “1 Because this court finds that the Commission failed to make sufficient findings of fact, the case is remanded to the Commission with instructions that it enter proper findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to §§ 386.420 and 536.090, RSMo 2000 . 2 After a hearing…”

State Ex Rel. Noranda Aluminum, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 24 S.W.3d 243 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 5× “The Supreme Court has looked exclusively to § 386.420 as the source for the commission’s obligation to make findings of fact although this statute does not mention findings of fact.”

State Ex Rel. Pub. Couns. v. PUB. Serv. COMM'N, 274 S.W.3d 569 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “The commission did not err in denying the State's request. UE next complains that the commission erred by not making findings of fact concerning the rate of return on equity that satisfied the requirements of §§ 386.”

State Ex Rel. Aquila, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 326 S.W.3d 20 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Section 386.420 does not define what constitutes adequate findings of fact, but Missouri courts have filled this gap by applying § 536.”

State ex rel. Fischer v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 645 S.W.2d 39 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 3× “Rather, it gives the Commission flexibility in its proceedings, as long as its proceedings satisfy all other statutory requirements.”

State Ex Rel. Rouveyrol v. Donnelly, 285 S.W.2d 669 (Mo. 1956). · cites it 2× “500, subsection 1, which provides: “After an order or decision has been made by the commission any corporation or person or public utility interested therein ■ shall have the right to apply for a rehearing in respect to any matter determined therein, * * Even iff we were…”

At & T Commc'ns of the Sw., Inc. v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 86 F. Supp. 2d 932 (W.D. Mo. 1999). · cites it 2× “SWBT also asserts the PSC violated a section of the Missouri statute governing proceedings before the PSC, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 386.420(1). This section grants parties the “right to be heard and to introduce evidence.”

State ex rel. Pub. Couns. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 274 S.W.3d 569 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “The commission did not err in denying the State’s request. UE next complains that the commission erred by not making findings of fact concerning the rate of return on equity that satisfied the requirements of §§ 386.”

Show all 18 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 386.420(1) — 2 cases

State Ex Rel. Jackson Cnty. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 532 S.W.2d 20 (Mo. 1976). “Similar language is likewise contained in Section 386.420(1), relating to how hearings are to be conducted before the Commission.”

At & T Commc'ns of the Sw., Inc. v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 86 F. Supp. 2d 932 (W.D. Mo. 1999). “SWBT also asserts the PSC violated a section of the Missouri statute governing proceedings before the PSC, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 386.420(1). This section grants parties the “right to be heard and to introduce evidence.”

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 386.420(2) — 1 case

State Ex Rel. Monsanto Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 716 S.W.2d 791 (Mo. 1986). “The Industrials expressly reserved this issue for review in their 1984 Stipulation and Agreement.”

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.