12/17/2014 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Storey v. Mayo, 77 P.U.R.3d 411 (1968) 217 So.2d 304 Vero Beach Mediation Statement - Attachment E 77 P.U.R.3d 411 Supreme Court of Florida. Mrs. John De Raismes STOREY, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Conley, Mr. and Mrs. George Fichter, Dr. P. M. Boyd, Jr., et nx., et al., Petitioners, v. William T. MAYO, Chairman, and Edwin L. Mason, and Jerry W. Carter, Commissioners, as and constituting the Florida Public Service Commission, Respondents. No. 37203. . I Nov. 6, 1968. Rehearing Denied Dec. 12,1968. Certiorari proceeding by consumers to review order of Public Service Commission which approved a territorial service agreement between a privately owned electric utility and a municipal electric utility. The Supreme Court, Thornal, held that territorial service agreement entered into to avoid overlapping service and expensive competitive activity was not invalid as being in restraint of trade, contrary to public interest, or violative of equal protection. Petition denied. Caldwell, C.J., and Ervin, J., dissented. West Headnotes (10) [1] Electricity Regulation in General; Statutes and Ordinances Powers of Public Service Commission to regulate privately owned electric utilities are exclusive and, therefore, necessarily broad and comprehensive. F.S.A. §§ 366.03, 366.05. 4 Cases that cite this headnote [2] Electricity .-� Regulation in General; Statutes and Ordinances Power of Public Service Commission over privately owned electric utilities is omnipotent within confines of statute and limits of organic law. F.SA. § 366.01 et seq. 5 Cases that cite this headnote [3] Public Utilities Certificates, Permits, and Franchises Power to mandate efficient and effective utility in public interest necessitates correlative power to protect utility against unnecessary, expensive competitive practices. F.S.A. § 366.01 et seq. Cases that cite this headnote [4] Public Utilities 6.- Service and Facilities Individual has no organic, economic or political right to service by particular utility merely because he deems it advantageous to himself. [5] 7 Cases that cite this headnote Constitutional Law vm Carriers and Public Utilities; Railroads Electricity 6i- Service Areas; Competition Individuals who protested tentorial service agreement between two electric utilities which was entered into to avoid overlapping service, and which required them to take electrical service from unregulated municipal utility rather than from regulated private utility, from which they had been receiving service, were not denied equal protection, since they occupied same status as all users of power from municipal utility. Cases that cite this headnote [6] Electricity 6'- Regulation of Supply and Use Electrldty 6.. Judicial Review and Enforcement In event of excessive rates or inadequate service by municipal electric utility that assumed function from privately owned utility of supplying electricity to certain individuals, 2014 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.