You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

RCC of Virginia, Inc. v. Roanoke & Botetourt Telephone Co.

Citations: 223 Va. 342; 288 S.E.2d 478; 1982 Va. LEXIS 207Docket: Record No. 811345

Court: Supreme Court of Virginia; March 12, 1982; Virginia; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves an appeal by RCC of Virginia, Inc., a radio common carrier, against the State Corporation Commission's decision to grant Roanoke and Botetourt Telephone Company the authority to offer radio paging services in Roanoke County and nearby cities. This legal dispute centers on interpreting the Utility Facilities Act, specifically a statute allowing telephone companies to provide services in territories serviced by other companies under certain conditions. The applicant sought to amend its certificate of public convenience and necessity, arguing they met the statutory requirements, which included having a Federal Communications Commission license and not interfering with existing services. Despite protests from RCC and Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company, the Commission ruled in favor of the applicant, citing legislative changes in 1980 that aimed to foster limited competition. The Commission found the applicant’s extension into Roanoke Valley was in the public interest and did not interfere with existing services. The court affirmed the Commission's decision, emphasizing the sufficiency of evidence and correct application of legal standards, thus allowing the applicant to offer paging services in the contested territory.

Legal Issues Addressed

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity

Application: The applicant sought to amend its certificate to offer paging services in new areas, which was approved by the State Corporation Commission.

Reasoning: The State Corporation Commission approved the applicant's request, allowing it to provide one-way mobile radio paging services in Roanoke and Salem.

Interpretation of Utility Facilities Act

Application: The case interprets the provision concerning a telephone company's ability to provide paging services in another company's territory under the Utility Facilities Act.

Reasoning: The dispute centers on the interpretation of a statute applicable only to telephone companies, particularly regarding the provision of radio paging services, which allow one-way communication via pagers.

Regulatory Changes and Legislative Intent

Application: The 1980 legislative changes permitted limited competition and allowed services beyond certificated territories, reflecting a shift in regulatory policies.

Reasoning: The 1980 General Assembly modified the regulation of telephone companies providing radio paging services, intending to allow limited competition beyond established service areas.

Standard of Proof and Evidence

Application: The Commission's findings were supported by credible evidence, fulfilling the statutory requirements under the Utility Facilities Act.

Reasoning: After reviewing the evidence and the Commission's thorough opinion, it was concluded that the Commission applied the correct standard of proof, and credible evidence supported its findings.