Court Opinion

ID: 9790229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:49:19.336421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:27.707505
License: Public Domain

DOOLIN, Justice,
dissenting:
The majority opinion approves an action by the Corporation Commission which, at best, can only be described as curious. It decided the merits of a complaint without hearing the evidence or considering a stipulation of facts.
The Corporation Commission announced it intended to determine first if it had jurisdiction to hear the complaints; however, it *366did much more than satisfy its jurisdictional musings. It said even if it heard the complaint, it would rule against the complainant.
Both parties argue that under definitions contained in 52 O.S.1971 §§ 23 and 24, Delhi might be both a common purchaser and a common carrier at the same time, and thus be subject to the regulations for each. However, the Corporation Commission chose to ignore that argument. Instead it refused parties a hearing as § 24.1 mandates.
The Commission decided the merits of the action, dismissed the cause and granted relief, all while refusing jurisdiction.
We have said that a Corporation Commission order must be supported by “substantial evidence”. Halpin v. Corporation Commission, 575 P.2d 109 (Okla.1977). But here the Commission decided the “jurisdictional” question in a virtual vacuum of evidence: only the pleadings and arguments of counsel were submitted.
“The Commission should base its findings upon the evidence before it. The rights of the parties depend upon the facts established at the hearing ... A finding without evidence to support it is arbitrary and baseless.” Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Corporation Commission, 90 Okl. 84, 92, 216 P. 917, 923 (1923), citations omitted.
The Corporation Commission may be ultimately correct in deciding it cannot order Delhi to purchase all of Inexco’s gas. But that decision is not “jurisdictional” in nature, it is dispositional of the merits and has no place in a jurisdictional hearing.
I would order the Corporation Commission to hold an evidentiary hearing as mandated by § 24.1 and decide the merits.
I am authorized to state that SIMMS, J., concurs with the views herein expressed.