approving trial court’s decision to determine utility’s request to stay the Commission's order based on the agency record, excluding new evidence on confiscation
How later courts described this case
- approving trial court’s decision to determine utility’s request to stay the Commission's order based on the agency record, excluding new evidence on confiscation
- Commission should consider nature and present usefulness of land held for future use *858 when determining inclusion in rate base
- Commission should consider nature and present usefulness of land held for future use when determining inclusion in rate base
- original cost less depreciation considered in determining "adjusted value of invested capital"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CHADICK, Justice,
dissenting.
I am compelled to dissent. The Public Utility Regulatory Act, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. art. 1446c, § 69, provides: “Any party to a proceeding before the commission is entitled to judicial review under the substantial evidence rule. The issue of confiscation shall be determined by a preponderance of the evidence.” (emphasis added) The majority has no warrant in precedent for holding that the Legislature violated the State Constitution by according the Telephone Company a jury trial, if requested, for determination of ultimate facts underlying the issue of confiscation. It may be that if any person or entity is to be deprived of their or its constitutional rights the Legislature and the Telephone Company would be a good place to start, but I am not agreeable to doing so. I think the Legislature can prescribe a jury trial on the confiscation issue and the Telephone Com *517 pany can claim a right to a jury trial. I would affirm the Court of Civil Appeals.