Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />Storey v. Mayo, 77 P.U.R.3d 411 (1968) <br />217 So.2d 304 <br />individuals would have appeal to courts <br />municipal council. <br />1 Cases that cite this headnote <br />or over function of privately owned utility in <br />suburban area, and which was entered into <br />to avoid overlapping service and expensive <br />competitive activity was not invalid as being in <br />restraint of trade, contrary to public interest, or <br />violative of equal protection. F.SA. §§ 350.641, <br />366.01 et seq., 366.03, 366.05, 366.10, 366.11. <br />[7] Electricity. <br />Duty to Supply, Conditions, and <br />Discrimination <br />Obligation of privately owned electric company <br />was to furnish reasonably sufficient service <br />to applicants therefor upon terns required by <br />Public Service Commission. F.SA. § 366.03. <br />Cases that cite this headnote <br />[8] Electricity <br />rr- Supply by Municipalities <br />Evidence was sufficient to support conclusion <br />that it was not reasonable to require privately <br />owned electric utility to continue to service <br />area, which was subject of agreement between <br />privately owned utility and municipal utility that <br />municipal utility would take over function of <br />servicing area. F.SA. § 366.05. <br />Cases that cite this headnote <br />[9] Electricity <br />' Supply by Municipalities <br />Notice of hearing before Public Service <br />Commission on application for approval of <br />territorial service agreement between privately <br />owned electric utility and municipal utility was <br />sufficient, where formal notice in adequate detail <br />was published and city notified all of its affected <br />customers by personally delivered letter well in <br />advance of hearing. <br />3 Cases that cite this headnote <br />[10] Constitutional Law <br />Carriers and Public Utilities; Railroads <br />Electricity <br />Supply by Municipalities <br />Territorial service agreement between privately <br />owned electric utility and municipal electric <br />utility, by which municipal utility would take <br />1 Cases that cite this headnote <br />Attorneys and Law Firms <br />*305 Irving Peskoe, pro se, and for Robert L. Lewis, for <br />petitioners and others directly affected. <br />Robert M. C. Rose, Tallahassee, for Florida Public Service <br />Commission. <br />*306 Phillip Goldman of Scott, McCarthy, Steel, Hector & <br />Davis, Miami, for Florida Power & Light Co. <br />Vernon W. Turner ofTunaer & Hodson, Homestead, for City <br />of Homestead. <br />Opinion <br />THORNAL, Justice. <br />By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order <br />of the Florida Public Service Commission which approved <br />a territorial service agreement between two electric utilities, <br />one being privately -owned and regulated by the state, the <br />other being municipally owned and unregulated. <br />We must decide whether the subject agreement is invalid as <br />being in restraint of trade, contrary to the public interest, or <br />violative of equal protection requirements. <br />The City of Homestead, a municipal corporation, owns its <br />electric utility system. It serves all residents in the City and <br />some in adjacent non -municipal areas. Florida Power and <br />Light Company is a privately -owned electric utility. It serves <br />extensive areas along the east coast, lower west coast and <br />south central sections of Florida Included in the Company's <br />service territory is the non -municipal area surrounding <br />Homestead. Because of the municipal operation the Company <br />is not permitted to serve customers inside the city limits. <br />However, prior to the subject agreement, the Company and <br />the City actively competed for customers in the suburban <br />areas. This, of course, required duplicating, paralleling and <br />r';S_ac, Next © 2014 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Govemment Works. 2 <br />SO <br />