Opinion ID: 1188004
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: due process analysis of the evidence

Text: Another question here is whether the minimum standards of due process were in fact met at the hearing below. Those standards are found in 75 O.S. 1981 § 310(4) of the Administrative Procedures Act and apply to Commission hearings although the act does not govern that body. [14] That section provides: Notice may be taken of judicially cognizable facts. In addition, notice may be taken of generally recognized technical or scientific facts within the agency's specialized knowledge. Parties shall be notified either before or during the hearing or by reference in preliminary reports or otherwise, of the material noticed, including any staff memoranda or data, and they shall be afforded an opportunity to contest the material so noticed. The agency's experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge may be utilized in the evaluation of the evidence. At the hearing on the application, agency counsel adequately revealed to the parties the various technical factors within the agency's specialized knowledge of which notice may be taken and of the problems presented by certain technical aspects of the value-of-services versus the cost-of-services rate analysis. The parties knew that the Commission was viewing with apprehension the possible impact of the credit to be allowed upon the integrity of the comprehensive tariff structure then in effect. The agency counsel's statements to that effect were no doubt understood by the representatives of the parties. They had ample opportunity to present proof in contest. Neither party came forth with any refuting data. AFFIRMED. IRWIN, C.J., BARNES, V.C.J., and LAVENDER, HARGRAVE and WILSON, JJ., concur. SIMMS, J., dissents. HODGES, J., not participating.