Bryant v. Arkansas Public Serv. Comm'n

2 Citing cases

  1. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. v. Arkansas Public Service Commission

    344 Ark. 188 (Ark. 2001)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that an appellant must fully develop an issue at the lower court level in order to preserve it for appellate review

    Further, to establish an absence of substantial evidence to support a decision, the appellant must demonstrate that the proof before the administrative tribunal was so nearly undisputed that fair-minded persons could not reach its conclusion. Bryant v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 57 Ark. App. 73, 941 S.W.2d 452 (1997) (citing ATT Communications of the Southwest, Inc. v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 40 Ark. App. 126, 843 S.W.2d 855 (1992); Arkansas Elec. Energy Consumers v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 35 Ark. App. 47, 813 S.W.2d 263 (1991)). The question on review is not whether the testimony would have supported a contrary finding but whether it supports the finding that was made.

  2. Arkansas Gas Consumers v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n

    354 Ark. 37 (Ark. 2003)   Cited 21 times
    Rejecting Act 301 as justification for a surcharge in part because it did not involve a utility's “existing facilities”

    The Commission's findings of fact, based upon the testimony of an expert witness, shall be conclusive when supported by substantial evidence. See Bryant v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 57 Ark. App. 73, 941 S.W.2d 452 (1997). There is an assurance that no double recovery would be allowed, and there is no evidence that the Commission will fail to assure this result.