66-118.
History: L. 1911, ch. 238, § 21; R.S. 1923, 66-118; Repealed, L. 1929, ch. 220, § 16; February 23.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Restraining order and temporary injunction distinguished; appeal. City of Emporia v. Telephone Co., 90 Kan. 118, 126, 133 P. 858.
2. Power of courts to enjoin rates allowed by commission considered. City of Emporia v. Telephone Co., 90 Kan. 118, 126, 133 P. 858.
3. Facts considered in determining whether rates are unprofitable. Railroad Co. v. Utilities Commission, 95 Kan. 604, 605, 148 P. 667.
4. Railroad entitled to fair profit on each commodity transported. Railroad Co. v. Utilities Commission, 95 Kan. 604, 605, 148 P. 667.
5. "Unreasonable, unjust, oppressive and unlawful" not synonymous with "confiscatory." Railroad Co. v. Utilities Commission, 95 Kan. 604, 605, 148 P. 667.
6. When rate "unreasonable, unjust, oppressive and unlawful" as against carrier. Railroad Co. v. Utilities Commission, 95 Kan. 604, 605, 148 P. 667.
7. Jurisdiction of commission not obtained by suit in Montgomery county. The State, ex rel., v. Flannelly, 96 Kan. 372, 152 P. 22.
8. Courts have no power to fix rates. Telephone Co. v. Utilities Commission, 97 Kan. 136, 139, 154 P. 262.
9. Rates insufficient to pay for service; power of courts; injunction. Telephone Co. v. Utilities Commission, 97 Kan. 136, 137, 139, 154 P. 262.
10. Rate declared confiscatory; establishment of rate until utilities commission acts. Telephone Co. v. Utilities Commission, 97 Kan. 136, 139, 154 P. 262.
11. Order of commission may be enforced by mandamus in supreme court. State, ex rel., v. Telephone Co., 102 Kan. 318, 321, 170 P. 26.
12. Injunction action against public utilities commission; where brought. Kansas City v. Utilities Commission, 103 Kan. 473, 475, 176 P. 324.
13. Mandamus; adequate remedy at law. Telephone Association v. Telephone Co., 107 Kan. 169, 173, 190 P. 747.
14. Court of industrial relations successors of public utilities commission; jurisdiction. Telephone Association v. Telephone Co., 107 Kan. 169, 173, 190 P. 747.
15. No appeal to supreme court from order of industrial court. Telephone Association v. Telephone Co., 107 Kan. 169, 173, 190 P. 747.
16. All orders may be challenged in court of competent jurisdiction. Railroad and Light Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations, 113 Kan. 217, 238, 214 P. 797, 807.
17. Ready access given for purpose of review. Consolidated Flour Mills Co. v. Kansas Gas & Elec. Co., 119 Kan. 47, 51, 237 P. 1037.
18. Who may be heard and appeal from ruling considered. Kansas Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Service Comm., 122 Kan. 462, 465, 251 P. 1097; City of Wichita v. Wichita Motor Bus Co., 126 Kan. 677, 681, 271 P. 403.
19. Action to enjoin and set aside order was trial de novo. Atchison, T. & S. F. Rly. Co. v. Public Service Comm., 130 Kan. 777, 779, 288 P. 755.
20. Ruling of commission will stand if any evidence supports it. Wichita Gas Co. v. Public Service Comm., 132 Kan. 459, 460, 461, 295 P. 668.
21. Cited in holding notice and hearing prerequisite to stay commission's order. Union Pac. Rld. Co. v. Missouri Pac. Rld. Co., 135 Kan. 450, 451, 10 P.2d 893.
22. Discussed in holding 66-118a contemplated appeals to supreme court. Hayward v. State Corporation Comm., 151 Kan. 1008, 1012, 101 P.2d 1041.
23. Order to disregard expenses in fixing gas rates held reviewable. Wichita Gas Co. v. Public Service Comm., 2 F. Supp. 792.
24. Customers of utility companies had remedy in state courts and could not bring action in federal court; action challenging legality of late assessment charges. Tennyson v. Gas Service Co., 506 F.2d 1135, 1136.
25. Review by district court of K.C.C. order is limited to the question of lawfulness and reasonableness. Jones v. Kansas Gas and Electric Co., 222 Kan. 390, 393, 396, 397, 565 P.2d 597.
26. Section does not give courts authority to substitute their judgment for that of K.C.C. (dissenting opinion). Jones v. Kansas Gas and Electric Co., 222 Kan. 390, 404, 565 P.2d 597.
|
|