Court Opinion

ID: 9547765
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:52:00.157124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:03.862852
License: Public Domain

Fatzer, J.,
concurring: I concur in the court’s affirmance of the judgment in this case, but the opinion unduly restricts the application and holding in Kansas Public Service Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 199 Kan. 736, 433 P. 2d 572. The opinion implies the question posed in Kansas Public Service, supra, was whether the commission complied with its own rules. A reading of the syllabus and the opinion will disclose more than the State Corporation Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure were involved.
The reasons for requiring the findings of basic facts by an administrative agency before which evidence is introduced and a record is made and upon which record judicial review occurs, are stated and set forth in Kansas Public Service, supra, to the effect that it is the responsibility of such an agency to express the basic findings on which it relies with sufficient specificity to convey to the parties, as well as to the courts, an adequate statement of the facts which persuaded the commission to arrive at its decision. In the opinion it was said:
“Not only does Rule No. 82-1-232 (a) require that the Commission make basic findings of fact to support its conclusions of law, but also that requirement has been imposed by this court to facilitate judicial review . . .” (l. c. 745.)
I would distinguish Kansas Public Service, supra, from the instant case upon the grounds that no record of evidence before the Board of County Commissioners was made, nor did the district court review the board’s action on the evidence before it. The statute (K. S. A. 1969 Supp. 19-2926) requires that the complaining party bring an action in the district court to test the reasonableness of the act or regulation in question.