St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Public Service Commission of Missouri Missouri Cases

This party appears in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive. The cases below connect legal research paths to related practice pages when the opinions map to practical client issues.

Party ID
public-service-commission-of-missouri
Cases Shown
2
Top Practice Route
Family Law
Archive note: This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source. This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Practice Pages

Practical guidance connected to this party profile

These links route party-name research from the court archive into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the associated opinions map to a practical client issue.

Family LawInsurance Bad FaithCivil LitigationEnergy

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help turning court research into a case plan?

If a party-profile research path points to a current injury, employment, insurance, or litigation issue, Ott Law Firm can review the facts and explain practical next steps.

Free ConsultationCall Ott Law Firm

Cases Involving Public Service Commission of Missouri

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases
Respondent

Missouri-American Water Company (MAWC) appealed an order from the Public Service Commission of Missouri concerning its Infrastructure System Replacement Surcharge (ISRS). MAWC argued the Commission erred by not including a deferred tax asset, related to a net operating loss (NOL), in the ISRS calculation, claiming the order was unreasonable and unlawful. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's order, finding its determination that no NOL was incurred during the relevant period was supported by substantial evidence and that its order was not unlawful.

Family LawCivil LitigationEnergy