findings of underlying facts may not be presumed to exist merely because Commission found one way or the other on ultimate facts, and both together must be sufficient to enable reviewing court to ascertain rationality of Commission’s final order
How later courts described this case
- findings of underlying facts may not be presumed to exist merely because Commission found one way or the other on ultimate facts, and both together must be sufficient to enable reviewing court to ascertain rationality of Commission’s final order
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GREENHILL, Justice
(concurring).
The opinion of the Court does not mention or pass upon the point that the order of the Railroad Commission was a printed form containing “standard” findings of fact for the granting of a certificate. The Legislature carefully prescribed that the Commission shall make “full and complete findings of fact.” This is part of the “due process” prescribed. In passing upon an application of this character, the Commission is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. After the Commission rules, its findings are presumed to be valid; and the losing party must bear the heavy burden of overcoming its findings under the substantial evidence rule. For the Commission to print in advance and use forms containing its fact findings upon which the order is based, filling in the date, the names of the parties, and the authority granted, in a contested case, is itself, in my opinion, a lack of procedural due process of law.
We know that the Commission has a very heavy burden and is not overstaffed. There may be, and probably are, many occasions when standard printed forms, in whole or in part, are adequate and permissible. But, in my opinion, the use of preprinted fact findings under the circumstances here presented does not fulfill the requirements of the statute.
I agree with the Court that there is not substantial evidence to support those findings which do appear in the printed form. So I concur with the result reached.