Court Opinion

ID: 9680266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:27:48.125118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:27.296434
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. I have no difference with the rules of law as expressed in the majority opinion. However, I differ with the majority on the interpretation of the words expressed in the act. It is agreed that the Public Service Commission commenced collecting on the gross earnings received by these utilities in 1978. However, the statute has not been changed since 1945. This act was an attempt by the legislature to make the public utilities pay for the costs of running the Public Service Commission. In doing so they enacted what we cite as Ark. Stat. Ann. § 73-249 (Repl. 1979), which provides that an annual fee up to 2/5 of 1% could be assessed against these utilities provided the fee was based on the gross earnings. Section (k) of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 73-201 (Act 324 of 1935, as amended) defines the term “gross earnings” to include “ . . . all amounts received, charged, or chargeable, for or on account of any public service furnished or supplied in this state by any public utility and shall include all gross income from all incidental, subordinate or subsidiary operations ... The words expressed by the legislature in this act seem plain and clear. If there is no need to use a crutch in determining the meaning of the words used by the legislature, then such should not be done. The primary rule in the construction of statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intentions of the legislature. McDonald v. Wasson, 188 Ark. 782, 67 S.W. 2d 722 (1934). It is also a cardinal rule that legislative intent is to be first determined from the language used in the statute. Ark. State Highway Comm. v. Mabry, 229 Ark. 261, 315 S.W. 2d 900 (1958). Other interpretations should only be considered if the intent of the legislature cannot be determined from the very words of the statute. I have no hesitancy in saying that all sums collected by public utilities in the state of Arkansas are a part of their gross earnings. The fact that a telephone call is placed from Little Rock to New York does not prevent the charges, which are collected in Little Rock, from being a part of the gross earnings of the corporation. Likewise, if a call were placed in New York to Little Rock, the collection would be made in New York and would thus be a part of the gross earnings collected by the utility in New York. The argument that the legislature knew of the previous interpretation of this statute by the Public Service Commission is of little consequence. The legislature has also known of the present policy since 1978 and has not done anything about it. In any event, this is unimportant, as are other rules of construction, as the plain language of the statute needs nothing extraneous to explain it.