Court Opinion

ID: 9661219
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:32:32.475361+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:26.436029
License: Public Domain

Danhof, C. J.
(dissenting). I agree with the opinion of my colleagues in all respects but the ultimate disposition of this matter.
It is abundantly clear that at the time this case *491was remanded to the PSC in 1966, there was ample evidence to support a finding of discontinuance. Witness the remarks of Justices Souris and O’Hara and the majority of this panel, page 485 of the majority opinion. Thus, the PSC would have been justified in so holding on remand, provided sufficient evidence to the contrary was not presented on rehearing. The only such evidence was the testimony of Mr. Burakowski, termed by the PSC "nebulous”.
The PSC, like a jury, is the principal assessor of weight and credibility. Although it is not apparent from their opinion just why the PSC chose to assign comparatively little weight to the testimony of Burakowski, the majority’s conclusion that it was solely because he testified from shipping documents and, hence, that all similar testimony of other witnesses should be similarly weighted is not, in my opinion, warranted.
The majority speaks of an improper shifting of the burden of proof. The burden of proof has not shifted, however, the significant volume of evidence already on the record opposing the plaintiffs’ position most certainly shifted the burden of going forward with the proofs. The plaintiffs, having failed to provide credible (could it not be said "clear” or "convincing”) evidence to establish that there was no discontinuance, the record stood essentially as it did when reviewed by the Supreme Court, which all agree supported a finding of discontinuance.
I would affirm.