Court Opinion

ID: 9674639
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:32:25.347153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:28.370090
License: Public Domain

Paul Ward, Associate Justice, (Dissenting). In brief, my reasons for dissenting are set out below. If McGehee can substantiate the allegations of his complaint in chancery court, it means money in his pockets. I assume that no one questions his right to try to prove his case against Mid South in a court of competent jurisdiction. The majority opinion denies Mc-Gehee this right unless the Arkansas Public Service Commission is in fact such a court. To my mind, to state the above issue is to answer it. I have never heard it contended or even intimated that the Arkansas Public Service Commission was a court, in law or equity, to resolve legal differences between individuals or corporations. It cannot be disputed that the Public Service Commission has only such powers as are given it by the legislature. Ark. Stats. § 73-115 contains that grant of powers which is “all matters pertaining to the regulation and operation of — ” (naming the several utilities). Nowhere is the commission invested with the general powers of a court. Yet, the effect of the majority opinion is to invest the commission with the general jurisdiction of a duly constituted court. The majority attempt to justify the result reached on the ground that McGehee had' the right of appeal to the circuit court. The fallacy of that position is clearly revealed by an examination of the law governing trials before the commission and appeals therefrom. First, however, it is pertinent to point out that if McGehee is permitted to exercise Ms constitutional right of trial by a court, the introduction of all evidence would be in accordance with rules developed by thousands of decisions over a long period of time. Yet, in a trial before the commission a radically different situation would obtain. Ark. Stats. § 73-127 provides that the commission “shall not be bound by the strict technical rules of pleading and evidence . . . ’J but it may use its own discretion. Can the effect of such a trial before the commission be erased or cured by an appeal to the circuit court? Definitely and clearly it cannot. Section 73-133 (Ark. Stats.) governs appeals from the commission to the circuit court of Pulaski County. After providing that such appeals are automatically allowed and that the secretary of the commission shall make a transcript of all proceedings and all evidence, the section then states: ‘ ‘ The said circuit court shall thereupon review said order upon the record presented . . .” (Emphasis added.) In Southwestern Gas and Electric Company v. City of Hatfield, 219 Ark. 515, 243 S. W. 2d 378, and Woodruff Electric Cooperative v. Arkansas Public Service Commission, 234 Ark. 118, 351 S. W. 2d 136, we recognized that the commission can exercise quasi judicial functions in matters incidental to the administration of the act. Those holdings, however, have no application here because McGehee’s grievance with Mid South was real and in no way incidental to the merger. For the reasons above noted I respectfully dissent.