Opinion ID: 339939
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application Of Doctrine Here

Text: 28 The petitions for rehearing of Opinion No. 565-A and its related order 133 presented to the Commission the questions whether the petitions should be granted or denied, and whether the Commission should abrogate or modify that opinion. 134 The Commission plainly decided those questions in the negative. The order on rehearing declares the Commission's opinion that the questions raised by the Applicants are sufficiently covered by or are clear from the language of Opinion No. 565-A and order, so that further discussion is unnecessary. 135 The order also sets forth the Commission's findings that [t]he assignments of error and grounds for rehearing set forth in the applications for rehearing ... present no facts or legal principles which would warrant any change in or modification of Opinion No. 565-A and its accompanying order. 136 The sole disposition effected by the order was that [t]he applications for rehearing ... [and] the motion for reconsideration ... are denied. 137 29 It is also evident that the Commission's decision to deny rehearing of Order No. 565-A was supported by the votes of a majority of the commissioners. Chairman Nassikas and Commissioner Bagge subscribed fully to the order of denial. 138 Commissioner O'Connor concurred in the denial, 139 and while he filed a statement expressing a change of view as to the amounts which the producers should receive from Texas Eastern, 140 he announced categorically his position that [t]he granting of rehearing at this time would not serve any constructive purpose, 141 and that an additional rehearing would not be fruitful. 142 Only Commissioners Carver and Brooke dissented, adhering to their thesis that the lease-sale transaction should be approved as it was. 143 30 We hold, then, that Opinion No. 565-A was not abrogated or modified by the vote on the petitions to rehear it. 144 Three commissioners--a commission majority--concurred in refusing rehearing of Opinion No. 565-A, and that was the only action which commanded a majority vote. Although the coalitions spawning Opinion No. 565-A were altered by the poll on the petitions for rehearing, the only proposal garnering a majority was the denial of rehearing; and the vote of the majority was, unequivocally, to leave Opinion No. 565-A intact. It bears repeating that the order recited the decision that [t]he assignments of error and grounds for rehearing set forth by the applicants for rehearing present no facts or legal principles which would warrant any change in or modification of Opinion No. 565-A or the order effectuating it. 145 Hardly could the Commissioners comprising the majority have made plainer their purpose not to change Opinion No. 565-A in any respect whatsoever. 31 In consequence, the matters before us for review are Opinion No. 565 as modified by Opinion No. 565-A, and Opinion No. 565-A without modification, and the orders respectively accompanying those opinions. To the issues tendered for review we now turn.