Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Tri-State Telephone and Telegraph Co., 284 N.W. 294.

59 citing documents.

In Re the Deregulation of the Installation & Maintenance of Inside Wiring 420 N.W.2d 650 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In Re the Deregulation of the Installation & Maintenance of Inside Wiring 420 N.W.2d 650 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
NWB also cites State v. Tri-State Telephone & Telegraph Co,, 204 Minn. 616 , as standing for the proposition that rates set by the Commission should be presumed just and reasonable until “the contrary is shown by clear and convincing evidence.” Subsequent to the Commission’s decision in the Tri-State case, however, the Minnesota legislature enacted Minn.Stat.
In re Summary Investigation into Intrastate Switched Access Charges Proposed by Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. for its Minnesota … 402 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In re Summary Investigation into Intrastate Switched Access Charges Proposed by Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. for its Minnesota … 402 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Tri-State Telephone & Telegraph Co., 204 Minn. 516, 532 , 284 N.W.
Application of Northwestern Bell Telephone 371 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Application of Northwestern Bell Telephone 371 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
“By undertaking to serve the convenience of the public, the company has submitted a large part of its conduct to public scrutiny * *.” Northwestern Bell Company v. State, 299 Minn. at 16 , d at 851 (quoting State v. Tri-State Telephone & Telegraph Co., 204 Minn. 516, 536 , 284 N.W.
State ex rel. Spannaus v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 304 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 1981
State ex rel. Spannaus v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 304 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 1981
tes section 237.10 which imposes on the Department of Public Service the duty to prescribe uniform rules and classifications pertaining to the conduct of “intrastate telephone business.” The company points out that this court has referred to the commission’s authority over “intrastate telephone rates” and “intrastate rates of telephone companies.” State v. Tri-State Telephone & Telegraph Co., 204 Minn. 516, 520 , 284 N.W.
Buettner v. City of St. Cloud 277 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1979
Buettner v. City of St. Cloud 277 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1979
This is the position taken by this court in rate-making cases such as State v. Tri-State Telephone and Telegraph Co., 204 Minn. 516 , 284 N.W.
St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce v. Minnesota Public Service Commission 251 N.W.2d 350 Minn. 1977
St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce v. Minnesota Public Service Commission 251 N.W.2d 350 Minn. 1977
State v. Tri-State T. and T. Co. 204 Minn. 516 , State and Port Authority of St.
State v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 246 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1976
Criticized State v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 246 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1976
Co. 188 Minn. 524, 530 , and State v. Tri-State Telephone & Telegraph Co. 204 Minn. 516, 525 , , 302 (1939).
Northwestern Bell Telephone Company v. State 216 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 1974
Northwestern Bell Telephone Company v. State 216 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 1974
We dealt with this issue in State v. Tri-State T. & T. Co. 204 Minn. 516, 537 , where we said: “We find adequate support in the record for the conclusion that some of the property has been made useless by the reconstruction of the plant and that other properties may at some time in the future be put in service in the plant but should not now be included in the ra
Minnesota Microwave, Inc. v. Public Service Commission 190 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1971
Minnesota Microwave, Inc. v. Public Service Commission 190 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1971
Co. 204 Minn. 516, 533 , , a case challenging the commission’s rate schedules, the court described as follows the historical background of the regulatory statute: “History.
Bryan v. Community State Bank of Bloomington 172 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 1969
Bryan v. Community State Bank of Bloomington 172 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 1969
*233 In State v. Tri-State T. & T. Co. 204 Minn. 516, 524 , , the court stated: “The zone of propriety between the extremes of mere conclusion and undue particularity has never been accurately defined.
Morey v. School Board of Independent School District No. 492 136 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 1965
Morey v. School Board of Independent School District No. 492 136 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 1965
We noted in State v. Tri-State T. & T. Co. 204 Minn. 516 , , that the zone of propriety between the extremes of mere conclusion and undue particularity has never been accurately defined.
City of Minneapolis v. MINNEAPOLIS TRANSIT COMPANY 133 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 1965
City of Minneapolis v. MINNEAPOLIS TRANSIT COMPANY 133 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 1965
State v. Tri-State T. & T. Co. 204 Minn. 516 , .
Northern States Power Co. v. City of St. Paul 99 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 1959
Northern States Power Co. v. City of St. Paul 99 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 1959
167 Minn. 311 , ; State v. Tri-State T. & T. Co. 204 Minn. 516 , .
Railroad & Warehouse Commission v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. 98 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 1959
Railroad & Warehouse Commission v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. 98 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 1959
In State v. Tri-State T. & T. Co. 204 Minn. 516, 521 , , we said: “* * * Due process demands that rates be fixed only after a hearing attended by at least the rudiments of fair play.
Minneapolis Street Railway Co. v. City of Minneapolis 86 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1957
Minneapolis Street Railway Co. v. City of Minneapolis 86 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1957
See, Barnes, The Economics of Public Utility Regulation, pp. 404, 568; State v. Tri-State T. & T. Co. 204 Minn. 516 , .
State v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 75 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1956
State v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. 75 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 1956
State v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. 75 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 1956
L. R. Co. 209 Minn. 564 , ; State v. Tri-State T. & T. Co. 204 Minn. 516 , ; Abrahamson v. Canadian Northern Ry.
State v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 75 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1956
Such a hearing has been described as an ‘inexorable safeguard.’ ” In State v. Tri-State T. & T. Co. 204 Minn. 516, 521 , , we said: * * Due process demands that rates be fixed only after a hearing attended by at least the rudiments of fair play.” The rudimentary requirements of fair play must be held to include fair treatment at the hands of the administrative officials as well as other elements of fair play.
Northern Pacific Railway Company v. City of Duluth 67 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1954
Northern Pacific Railway Company v. City of Duluth 67 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1954
L. R. Co. 209 Minn. 564 , ; State v. Tri-State T. & T. Co. 204 Minn. 516 , ; Chicago & N. W. Ry.
Rock Island Motor Transit Co. v. Murphy Motor Freight Lines, Inc. 58 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1953
Rock Island Motor Transit Co. v. Murphy Motor Freight Lines, Inc. 58 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1953
Co. 69 Minn. 353 , ; State v. Tri-State T. & T. Co. 204 Minn. 516 , ; State and R. R. & W. H. Comm.
State & Port Authority v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 39 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 1949
State & Port Authority v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 39 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 1949
In State v. Tri-State T. & T. Co. 204 Minn. 516, 526, 530 , , 304 — after observing that in complex and delicate cases much weight attaches to the commission’s judgment — we quoted with approval the language of Mr. Chief Justice Hughes in St.
In Re Applications to Fix Streetcar Rates of Fare 37 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1949
City of Minneapolis v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 37 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 1949
City of Minneapolis v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 37 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 1949
the statute mentioned above, to the effect that rates of fare fixed shall be such as to yield a reasonable return on the fair value of the street railway property, and in well-settled rules of constitutional law that rates must be sufficient to yield a reasonable return on the fair value of the utility’s property at the time it is being used to serve the public (State v. Tri-State T. & T. Co. 204 Minn. 516 , ; American Toll Bridge Co. v. Railroad Comm.
In Re Applications to Fix Streetcar Rates of Fare 37 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1949
ns of the statute mentioned above, to the effect that rates of fare fixed shall be such as to yield a reasonable return on the fair value of the street railway property, and in well-settled rules of constitutional law that rates must be sufficient to yield a reasonable return on the fair value of the utility's property at the time it is being used to serve the public (State v. Tri-State T. T. Co. 204 Minn. 516 , 284 N.W.
Arrowhead Bus Service, Inc. v. Black & White Duluth Cab Co. 32 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 1948
Arrowhead Bus Service, Inc. v. Black & White Duluth Cab Co. 32 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 1948
L. R. Co. 209 Minn. 564 , ; State v. Tri-State T. & T. Co. 204 Minn. 516 , .
State & Port Authority v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 22 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 1946
Hunter v. Zenith Dredge Co. 19 N.W.2d 795 Minn. 1945
Hunter v. Zenith Dredge Co. 19 N.W.2d 795 Minn. 1945
In State v. Tri-State T. & T. Co. 204 Minn. 516, 522 , , we stated: “* * * Likewise, in the case of due process the single finding that existing rates are unreasonable is a conclusion and insufficient unless supported by findings of fact more particularly stated which demonstrate the grounds upon which the conclusion is based so that the court ma
Country Club District Service Co. v. Village of Edina 8 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1943

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by