Document: 434 U.S. 9 98 S.Ct. 251 54 L.Ed.2d 8 SOUTHERN & NORTHERN OVERLYING CARRIER CHAPTERS OF THE CALIFORNIA DUMP TRUCK OWNERS ASSOCIATIONv.PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION No. 76-1526 Supreme Court of the United States October 11, 1977 Oct. 1977. PER CURIAM. 1 In this appeal from a judgment California, appellants challenge constitutionality promulgation by appellee certin rate tariffs applicable to dump truck carriers operating in California. They contend essentially that violate their rights due process and equal protection guaranteed Fournteenth Amendment because issued them on basis findings unsupported any evidence record. We have been informed parties subsequent filing juristictional statement with appelle reopened its proceedings at appellants' request is conducting additional evidentiary hearings concering contested regulations. These may remove for, or significantly alter nature of, constitutional attack. Consequently, we dismiss without prejudice raising appropiate federal claims following completion proceedings. See Boston M. R. Co. v. States, 358 68 (1958). So ordered. 2 Mr. Justice REHNQUIST, dissenting. 3 Since properly before us, prior practice indicates must either dispose it merits advance some principled reason for not doing so. The statutory distinction, drawn Congress, between certiorari would seem require no less. While Court's dismissal 68, 79 107, 34 (1958), be justified as an exercise our supervisory power over lower courts, proper respect independence state systems requires general rule deal appeals judgments merits. 4 Art. III Constitution limits jurisdiction cases controversies, occasionally dismissed moot, re Sarner, 361 233, 80 368, 350 (1960); Castellano Commission Investigation, 7, 51, 49 (1959), compelled do so even though court has found justiciable controversy under own law, see Richardson Ramirez, 418 24, 36, 94 2655, 41 551 (1974). But there suggestion mootness here. 5 Indeed, all here apparent preference part decide case just now. This not, my opinion, defensible exception principle treat I conclude rejected California merit.* Accordingly, want substantial question. If other arise out proceedings, they should presented final judgment. * am satisfied that, purposes 28 U.S.C. § 1257, final. That judgment, denying petition review, finally claim commission were constitutionally defective. exercised "latent . reopen revise judgment." Market St. Railroad Comm'n, 324 548, 551, 65 770, 89 L.Ed. 1171 (1945). fail how actions can disturb finality Nor does suggest otherwise.

Category: 7