Court Opinion

ID: 9680545
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:33:28.560401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:29.196154
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING OR FOR TRANSFER TO COURT EN BANC
PER CURIAM.
 By its motion for rehearing or in the alternative for transfer to the Court En Banc, the Commission argues that the findings which it made in this case were sufficient. The motion asserts: “The only ultimate fact which the Commission was required to find was whether or not the water mains in question would interfere with the construction, maintenance or use of the highway.” Insofar as the finding of ultimate fact is concerned, we can agree with this contention. We do not agree, however, that such ultimate finding, couched in the statutory language, is the only finding the Commission was required to make. The Commission must also have found the basic facts from which such ultimate fact might be inferred. “Courts do not want agencies to include detailed summaries of testimony in their findings; they want what they call the basic facts. * * * The basic findings are those on which the ultimate finding rests; the basic findings are more detailed than the ultimate finding but less detailed than a summary of the evidence.” 2 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, Section 16.06, pages 450, 451. Only when the administrative agency makes such basic findings can a court properly perform its limited function of review of the administrative action. To repeat Judge Hyde’s statement in Michler v. Krey Packing Co., 363 Mo. 707, 253 S.W. 2d 136, 142, “In any case, finding should be sufficient to show how the controlling issues have been decided.”
Here the basic facts found by the Commission afford a foundation for the ultimate fact only by reason of the Commission’s policy. Our view that the Commission’s finding was essentially based upon such policy is reinforced by the Commission’s motion for rehearing.
In arguing that the opinion misconstrued State ex rel. Highway Commission v. Weinstein, Mo.Sup., 322 S.W.2d 778, the Commission states: “The Weinstein case did not hold that after a hearing was held the Commission could not determine from the evidence presented whether it should or should not apply its policy.” Weinstein did hold that a matter such as this must be determined in the particular case on the plans, the evidence of the parties and the matters of which the Commission might properly take judicial notice. Application of the Commission’s policy to determine the matter is inconsistent with such requirement because the policy declares: “Any location or relocation of utility facilities contrary to this policy is declared to be an interference with the construction or maintenance of state highways and their rights-of-way and is prohibited.”
The object of the hearing is not, as the Commission argues, to determine whether or not the policy should be applied. The object of the hearing is to determine whether or not the evidence shows that in the particular project the utility facilities would *126interfere with the construction, maintenance or use of the highway.
The motion for rehearing or in the alternative for transfer to the Court En Banc is overruled.