Charlotte Scott et al. v. Arkansas Public Service Commission
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
EN BANC
CA06-595
October 4, 2006
CHARLOTTE SCOTT, et al.
APPELLANT
v.
ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION
APPELLEE
AN APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
APPELLEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PASSED
UNTIL SUBMISSION; APPELLANTS’ MOTION
TO RESPOND IN BRIEF GRANTED;
APPELLANTS’ MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
DENIED
P ER C URIAM
On May, 26, 2006, appellants, Charlotte Scott, Sean Layman, Terry V. Johnson, and
Dr. Theodore Skokos, on their own behalf and on the behalf of all others similarly situated,
filed a notice of appeal from Order No. 11 of the Arkansas Public Service Commission in
Docket No. 05-006-u. The Arkansas Public Service Commission (Commission) responded
with a motion to dismiss on June 16, 2006. The Commission also filed a motion to
incorporate and supplement the record in Mike Beebe, Attorney General v. Arkansas Public
Service Commission, CA06-379, and this motion was granted on July 26, 2006.
Subsequently, the appellants filed a motion to stay the proceedings pending the filing
of their appeals in two other related cases, to consolidate this appeal with the two other
related appeals, and to allow them to respond to the Commission’s pending motion for
dismissal in their brief on the merits of the appeal. The Commission and Arkansas Oklahoma
Gas Corporation (AOG), petitioner in Docket No. 05-006-u, have filed responses denying
that appellants’ motions should be granted.
Appellants have since filed appeals in the two other related cases: Scott, et al. v.
Arkansas Oklahoma Gas Corp., CA06-716, an appeal from an order of the Sebastian County
Circuit Court; and Arkansas Oklahoma Gas Corp. v. Scott, CA06-846, an appeal from
Docket No. 06-021-C of the Arkansas Public Service Commission. We now address the
motions pending in this appeal. The Commission’s motion to dismiss the appeal is passed
until submission of the appeal on the merits. Appellants’ motion to respond to the
Commission’s dismissal motion in their brief is granted. The clerk’s office shall set a
briefing schedule for this appeal. Appellants’ motion to consolidate this appeal with CA06716 and CA06-846 is denied.
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.
