Court Opinion

ID: 9830445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:13:18.158381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:24:04.557224
License: Public Domain

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
In challenging our holding that notice of hearing is not essential to general orders of the Commission in highway traffic for hire regulation, appellant cites Southern Ry. Co. v. Virginia, 290 U.S. 190, 54 S.Ct. 148, 78 L.Ed. 260; Chicago etc. Ry. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U.S. 418, 10 S.Ct. 462, 33 L.Ed. 970; Rabbit Creek Oil Co. v. Shell Pet. Corp., Tex.Civ.App., 66 S.W.2d 737, and Smith v. Wald T. & S. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 97 S.W.2d 991.
In so far as the latter two cases are concerned it need only be pointed out that no general order of the Commission was involved,. but specific orders applicable to specific fact situations as governed by general orders and powers of the 'Commission. In the former case the right to drill an oil well as an exception to the spacing rule (37) was involved; and in the latter the right to a routing amendment to a truck permit. Moreover in each case the governing statute specifically required notice and hearing.
The first cited case involved the validity of a statute of Virginia delegating to the State Highway Commissioner the power and duty to determine the necessity for elimination of grade crossings, and upon determining such necessity to require railroad corporations to provide such grade separation at • their own expense. By a divided court the statute was held void for failure to provide either notice or hearing as to the necessity of such grade elimination. The views of the three dissenting Justices follow (page 151 of 54 S.Ct.):
“The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Stone, and Mr. Justice Cardozo dissent upon the ground that there has been a lawful delegation to the state highway commissioner of the power to declare the need for the abate*147ment of a nuisance through the elimination of grade crossings dangerous to life and limb; that this power may be exercised without notice or a hearing (Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Nebraska, 170 U.S. '57, 77, 18 S.Ct. 513, 42 L.Ed. 948, 955), provified adequate opportunity is afforded for review in the^event that the power is perverted or abused; and that such opportunity has been given by the statutes of Virginia as construed by its highest court.”
The Minnesota Case involved the right of judicial review of an order of the Railroad Commission of that state fixing freight rates. The question arose in an appeal (by writ of error) from a final decree of the Supreme Court of that state issuing a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring the railroad companies to put the rates in effect, in which proceeding the railroad companies were denied the right to a hearing upon the alleged confiscatory effect of the rates. The federal Supreme Court (also in a. divided opinion) held that the denial of such hearing contravened the due process clause of the Federal Constitution. The majority opinion concludes:
“The issuing of the peremptory writ of mandamus in this case was, therefore, unlawful, because in violation of the constitution of the United States; and it is- necessary that the relief administered in favor of the plaintiff in error should be a reversal of the judgment of the supreme court awarding that writ, and an instruction for further proceedings by it not inconsistent with the opinion of this court.
“In view of the opinion delivered by that court, it may be impossible for any further proceedings to be taken other than to dismiss the proceeding for a mandamus, if the court should adhere to its opinion that, under the statute, it cannot investigate judicially the reasonableness of the rates fixed by the commission. Still, the question will be open for review; and the judgment of this court is that the judgment of the supreme court of Minnesota, entered May 4, 1888, awarding a peremptory writ of mandamus in this case, be reversed, and the case be remanded to that court, with an instruction for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of this court.”
In a concurring opinion Mr. Justice Miller held:
“In the present case, where an application is made to the Supreme Court of the State to compel the common carriers, namely, the railroad companies, to perform the services which their duty requires them to do for the general public, which is equivalent to establishing by judicial proceeding the reasonableness of the charges fixed by the commission, I think the court has the same right and duty to inquire into the reasonableness of the tariff of rates established by the commission before granting such relief, that it would have if called upon so to do by a bill in chancery.”
These decisions have 'no controlling effect upon the case at bar.
It seems quite generally held that due process is satisfied when judicial review of administrative orders is provided. See Alabama Pub. Ser. Comm. v. Mobile Gas Co., 213 Ala. 50, 104 So. 538, 41 A.L.R. 872.
In section 612 of 12 Am.Jur., p. 307, treating the subject of the necessity for notice and hearing in proceedings before “commissions, boards, etc.,” it is said:
“The rule that a hearing before judgment or order .is not necessary to due process is especially applicable to proceedings before commissioners and boards, such as public utility commissioners^ banking superintendents, etc. There is no violation of due process if provision is made for a trial de novo before a court of the issues, passed upon by such a commission, for a judicial review of the order, even a review by mandamus, provision for suspending or setting aside the order, for a hearing before the order is put into effect,' or for a rehearing upon application.”
As pointed out in our original opinion, Art. 911b, § 20, specifically accords judicial review to any interested aggrieved party “after failing to get relief from the Commission.” By this language application to the Commission for such relief is manifestly made a prerequisite to such review. The case clearly falls within the rule announced in the two decisions of the Federal Supreme Court, and in 37 Tex.Jur., p. 918, cited in our original opinion.
The motion is overruled.
Overruled.