386.500. Rehearing before commission. — 1. After an order or decision has been made by the commission, the public counsel or 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, and the commission shall grant and hold such rehearing, if in its judgment sufficient reason therefor be made to appear; if a rehearing shall be granted the same shall be determined by the commission within thirty days after the same shall be finally submitted.
2. No cause or action arising out of any order or decision of the commission shall accrue in any court to any corporation or the public counsel or person or public utility unless that party shall have made, before the effective date of such order or decision, application to the commission for a rehearing. Such application shall set forth specifically the ground or grounds on which the applicant considers said order or decision to be unlawful, unjust or unreasonable. The applicant shall not in any court urge or rely on any ground not so set forth in its application for rehearing.
3. An application for a rehearing shall not excuse any corporation or person or public utility from complying with or obeying any order or decision or any requirement of an order or decision of the commission, or operate in any manner to stay or postpone the enforcement thereof except as the commission may by order direct.
4. If, after a rehearing and a consideration of the facts, including those arising since the making of the order or decision, the commission shall be of the opinion that the original order or decision or any part thereof is in any respect unjust or unwarranted, or should be changed, the commission may abrogate, change or modify the same. An order made after any such rehearing, abrogating, changing or modifying the original order or decision shall have the same force and effect as an original order or decision but shall not affect any right or the enforcement of any right arising from or by virtue of the original order or decision.
Notes of Decisions
State Ex Rel. AG Processing Inc. v. Thompson, 100 S.W.3d 915 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “Appellant also contends that Respondents/Relators failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by appealing the PSC’s March 28, 2002, order under section 386.500, RSMo 2000 (rehearing before commission), or section 386.”
State Ex Rel. Missouri Power & Light Co. v. Riley, 546 S.W.2d 792 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 5× “Section 386.500(1), RSMo 1969, provides that, “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, * * *.”
State Ex Rel. Marco Sales, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 685 S.W.2d 216 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 4× “After the order was handed down by the *218 Commission, Marco filed an application for rehearing pursuant to § 386.500, RSMo 1978, which was denied by the Commission.”
State Ex Rel. City of West Plains v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 310 S.W.2d 925 (Mo. 1958).
· cites it 4× “Appellants' two other contentions, that the order and general rule are vague and indefinite and permit cities to exercise rate-making powers, were not set forth in appellants' application for a rehearing before the commission and for that reason we are precluded from considering…”
State Ex Rel. Riverside Pipeline Co., Lp v. Pub. Serv. Com'n, 215 S.W.3d 76 (Mo. 2007).
· cites it 2× “" Although the PSC, in requesting reconsideration of this holding, concedes that "the word `aggrieved' is not in the text of [section 386.500]," it maintains, nonetheless, that "[i]t cannot be that anyone `interested' in a PSC proceeding may wastefully consume judicial resources…”
AG Processing Inc. v. Missouri Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 408 S.W.3d 175 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “19 Therefore, because AGP attempts to challenge issues not decided in the May 9, 2012 Tariff Approval Order and because AGP has not complied with section 386.500, we find that AGP failed to properly preserve those issues for our review.”
State Ex Rel. Dyer v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 341 S.W.2d 795 (Mo. 1961).
· cites it 3× “2d 40, 46 (involving a controversy between local utilities as to the control of a small territory) it was held that an “interested” (§ 386.500) party might apply for a rehearing or for review; also that “ * * * the interest necessary to authorize intervention should be the same…”
State Ex Rel. Off. of the Pub. Couns. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 236 S.W.3d 632 (Mo. 2007).
“Applying the law The statutory review process for a PSC order, set forth in sections 386.500 and 386.510, begins with an application for rehearing that must be filed before the effective date of the order or decision being appealed.”
State Ex Rel. Beaufort Transfer Co. v. Clark, 504 S.W.2d 216 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973).
· cites it 3× “” Section 386.500(2) RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S. The failure to comply with that requirement in this instance precludes judicial review of the contention.”
State Ex Rel. City of Springfield v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 812 S.W.2d 827 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “1, RSMo 1986, is to allow effected parties the opportunity to request rehearing and review of the Commission’s Orders in accordance with the provisions of § 386.500, RSMo 1986 (Rehearing before commission) and § 386.”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 386.500(1): 1 case
State Ex Rel. Missouri Power & Light Co. v. Riley, 546 S.W.2d 792 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977).
“Section 386.500(1), RSMo 1969, provides that, “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, * * *.”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 386.500(2): 6 cases
State Ex Rel. Beaufort Transfer Co. v. Clark, 504 S.W.2d 216 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973).
“” Section 386.500(2) RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S. The failure to comply with that requirement in this instance precludes judicial review of the contention.”
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.