MICHIGAN BELL V MPSC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of Application and Complaint of MCI
Telecommunications Corporation Against Michigan
Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a Ameritech
Michigan, Seeking (i) a 55% Discount of Intrastate
Switched Access Service Where IntraLATA Dialing
Parity is Not Provided, and (ii) an Order Requiring
Implementation of IntraLATA Dialing Parity On an
Expedited Basis Now that July 1, 1997 has Passed.
UNPUBLISHED
March 16, 2001
MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS
CORPORATION,
Complainant-Appellee,
and
AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF MICHIGAN,
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, LP,
LCI INTERNATIONAL, and ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
Intervenors-Appellees,
and
MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
Appellee,
v
MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY,
d/b/a AMERITECH MICHIGAN,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: K. F. Kelly, P.J., and Smolenski, and Meter, JJ.
-1-
No. 217037
Public Service Commission
PSC No. U-11743
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Ameritech Michigan filed a claim of appeal from the January 19, 1999, opinion
and order of the Public Service Commission (PSC) that, inter alia, directed Ameritech Michigan
to immediately implement full intraLATA toll dialing parity. As a result of various intervening
events since the filing of this appeal, the only remaining issue properly before this Court is
whether the PSC erred in awarding costs to the prevailing parties.1 We reverse the award of
costs.
In an earlier order, this Court peremptorily reversed the PSC’s award of attorney fees in
light of In re Complaint of City of Southfield Against Ameritech Michigan, 235 Mich App 523,
533-535; 599 NW2d 760 (1999), which held that § 601 of the Michigan Telecommunications
Act (MTA), MCL 484.2601; MSA 22.1469(601),2 authorized the PSC to make whole ratepayers
and other persons who had suffered economic losses but did not authorize it to award attorney
fees to a prevailing party. For similar reasons, we reverse the PSC’s award of costs upon our de
novo review.3 See In re Complaint of Southfield, supra at 533 (setting forth standard of review
for questions of law). Indeed, the MTA did not expressly provide for such an award under § 601.
See id. at 534-535. Moreover, as noted in In re Complaint of Southfield, supra at 534-535, to the
extent that the MTA did authorize an award of costs, including reasonable attorney fees, the
opposing party’s position must have been determined to be frivolous. Here, there is no claim that
the action was frivolous. Finally, we note that precluding awards of costs in cases brought before
the PSC under the MTA is appropriate, given that virtually all such cases involve public
questions, which generally do not merit an award of costs. See generally American Aggregates
Corp v Highland Twp, 151 Mich App 37, 54; 390 NW2d 192 (1986).
Reversed.
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
1
We expressly decline to address the merits of the four issues previously raised by Ameritech
Michigan but abandoned on rebriefing.
2
The MTA was automatically repealed, effective January 1, 2001. MCL 484.2604; MSA
22.1469(604).
3
We note that appellee AT&T incorrectly asserts, at page 19 of its amended brief, that Ameritech
Michigan did not adequately brief the issue of costs. Contrary to this assertion, Ameritech
Michigan did indeed adequately address the issue of costs, in footnote 17 of its amended brief.
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
