Court Opinion

ID: 9538283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:34:16.637653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:43.041634
License: Public Domain

ROONEY, Justice,
concurring in the result only.
The majority opinion “goes around the bush” in reaching its result. In doing so, it gives indication of deciding the issue presented in appellants’ appeal of another case now pending before us and in which we have not had the benefit of briefs or arguments by the parties.
This case should be decided on the one simple issue of whether or not the trial court’s action in dismissal of the appeal of the petition for review of the action by the Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as PSC) was proper. Other aspects of the matter need not, and should not be considered.
Appellants filed their applications or tariffs with the PSC proposing new rates (hereinafter referred to as permanent tariffs) pursuant to § 37-3-106(c), W.S.1977;1 and pursuant to that section, the PSC suspended the effective date of the new rates pending an investigation and/or hearing thereon.
Appellants also filed with the PSC, pursuant to § 37-3-106(d), W.S.1977,2 a request (hereinafter interim request) for permission to place the permanent tariffs into effect immediately, subject to refund should ultimately they be denied. Section 37-3-106(d), W.S.1977 makes such request “subject to the commission’s approval.” It does not provide for suspension of them, and, indeed, a “suspension” would be superfluous in view of the interim nature of the requests and their effectiveness being conditioned on the suspension of the permanent tariffs.
Appellants here appeal the propriety of the action taken by the district court in dismissing a petition to review the PSC order suspending the effectiveness of the tariffs presented under the interim request. The district court action here appealed from was taken after the PSC entered a subsequent order which did not suspend, but which rejected the request. In other words the dismissal was a result of the PSC finally taking an action which was in accordance with law.
The appeal was entertained by the district court in the first instance because the PSC action in suspending the interim request was without observance of procedure required by law, § 9-4-114(c)(ii)(D), W.S. 1977, 1980 Cum.Supp. When the interim request was rejected by the PSC, such action was in accordance with law, and the appeal became moot. It was on this basis that the district court dismissed the appeal of the petition for review. Such court said so in so many words:
“The Court finds that a decision upon the merits of this case would be ineffectual as the Public Service Commission has rejected the application of the Petitioners for an .interim rate increase. Said rejection supercedes [sic] the Respondent’s suspension orders making a challenge to the Suspension Orders moot. Belondon v. State, 379 P.2d 828, 829 (Wyo., 1963). Cheever v. Warren, 70 Wy. 296, 249 P.2d 163, 167 (1952).” (Emphasis supplied.)
In this appeal to us, we should not go beyond that which the district court did. *1086We need not, and should not, examine other aspects of the PSC order or actions. Whatever reasons the PSC may have had to reject the interim request and/or the permanent tariffs should not be here considered. Those reasons are subject of the other appeal to the district court, and from it to us. We should consider that appeal on its own merits after review of the reasoning of the PSC and of the district court in connection forthwith, and after consideration of the briefs and arguments of the parties there submitted and made.
I concur with the majority opinion in the affirmance of the district court, but only for the reason herein stated.

. See footnote 1 of majority opinion.

. See footnote 2 of majority opinion.