# Miller v. Railroad Commission

> Texas Supreme Court · November 28, 1962 · 363 S.W.2d 244

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9676778

## Case

- **Full name:** Walter R. MILLER Et Al., Petitioners, v. RAILROAD COMMISSION of Texas Et Al., Respondents
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 28, 1962
- **Citations:** 363 S.W.2d 244; 1962 WL 119395
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Greenhill
- **Judges:** Calvert, Greenhill
- **Cited by:** 39 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9676778

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9676778. Public record. Not legal advice.