AT&T Comm. v. Pub. Util. Com'n

3 Citing cases

  1. So. Bell Telephone Co. v. Combs

    270 S.W.3d 249 (Tex. App. 2008)   Cited 18 times
    Finding no federal or state equal protection violation in imposing franchise taxes on local exchange carriers but not long-distance carriers

    In 1995, Bell's Access Service Tariff filed with the Texas Public Utility Commission applied to "the provision of Carrier Common Line, End User Access, Switched Access, and Special Access services, and other miscellaneous services. . . ." See AT T Communications of the Southwest v. Public Utility Com'n of Texas, 906 S.W.2d 209, 213 n. 6 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, writ denied). At issue, here, are Bell's revenues deposited in two FCC denominated deposit accounts for Network Access Revenues and a customer account for various payper-use services as follows:

  2. City of Abilene v. P.U.C. of Texas

    No. 03-02-00569-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 27, 2003)

    The burden of proving unreasonable discrimination is on the party asserting the claim. AT T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. v. Public Util. Comm'n, 906 S.W.2d 209, 213-14 n. 7 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, writ denied). It is not enough for a claimant to show that the difference in rates results in unequal treatment. Amtel, 687 S.W.2d at 103.

  3. S.W. Bell v. Metro-Link

    919 S.W.2d 687 (Tex. App. 1996)   Cited 26 times
    Holding the filed rate doctrine applies to bar state as well as federal causes of action

    In such instance, the utility should propose an amendment to its tariff.AT T Communications v. Public Util. Comm'n, 906 S.W.2d 209, 217 (Tex.App. — Austin 1995, writ pending). We think this quote confirms what we have stated previously in discussing the filed rate doctrine: the filed tariff controls who it applies to and what services are given.