Law Review and Bar Journal References:

Judicial review of administrative decisions, Kenton C. Granger, 33 J.B.A.K. 291, 338 (1964).

"Motor Carrier Cases Before the State Corporation Commission," Larry E. Gregg, 48 J.B.A.K. 107, 118 (1979).

"Rethinking Kansas Administrative Procedure," Marilyn V. Ainsworth and Sidney A. Shapiro, 28 K.L.R. 419, 435 (1980).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. 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.

2. Nature and scope of appellate review considered. Southern Kansas Stage Lines Co. v. Public Service Comm., 135 Kan. 657, 661, 11 P.2d 985.

3. Order granting writ of convenience and necessity; scope of appellate review considered. In re Inland Pipe Line Co., 143 Kan. 820, 821, 57 P.2d 65.

4. Discussed; appeals to supreme court contemplated by 66-118a. Hayward v. State Corporation Comm., 151 Kan. 1008, 1012, 101 P.2d 1041.

5. Nature and scope of appellate review of commission's judicial orders determined. Union Pac. Rld. Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 165 Kan. 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 194 P.2d 939.

6. Gas proration; appeal from commission's order tried on record; evidence; duty of district court. White Eagle Oil Co. v. State Corporation Comm., 168 Kan. 548, 554, 214 P.2d 337.

7. Motor carrier permit; nature and scope of appellate review; power of court. Rock Island Motor Transit Co. v. State Corporation Comm., 169 Kan. 487, 493, 219 P.2d 405.

8. District court cannot hear motions to change commission's order without transcript of proceedings. City of McPherson v. State Corporation Commission, 174 Kan. 407, 410, 257 P.2d 123.

9. Application for review resembles notice of appeal (see what is now 60-2103) not a petition (see what is now 60-208). Wichita Chamber of Commerce v. State Corporation Commission, 179 Kan. 386, 388, 295 P.2d 670.

10. Mentioned; procedure to obtain review of matter remanded considered. Stewart v. State Corporation Commission, 181 Kan. 666, 669, 313 P.2d 749.

11. Nature and scope of appellate review considered. Atchison, T. & S.F. Rly. Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 182 Kan. 603, 609, 322 P.2d 715.

12. Section is constitutional; remedy of appeal permissive, not mandatory. Western Distributing Co. v. Public Service Comm., 58 F.2d 239.

13. District court can only review the record as transmitted to it by the commission. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 192 Kan. 39, 47, 90, 386 P.2d 515.

14. Mentioned in determining summary judgment not available to interpret certificate of convenience and necessity. Pelican Transfer & Storage v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 195 Kan. 76, 79, 402 P.2d 762.

15. The proceeding on judicial review is not a trial as that term is used in the code of civil procedure. Cities Service Gas Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 201 Kan. 223, 233, 440 P.2d 660.

16. District court not authorized to make findings of fact where none have been made by the commission. Cities Service Gas Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 201 Kan. 223, 233, 235, 440 P.2d 660.

17. District court not authorized to make findings of fact where commission made no findings, and neither that court nor supreme court can review them on appeal; must be adequate basic findings or court cannot perform its function. Cities Service Gas Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 201 Kan. 223, 235, 440 P.2d 660.

18. Reasonableness of commission order considered; order upheld. Missouri Pacific Rld. Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 205 Kan. 610, 623, 470 P.2d 767.

19. Cited in upholding a commission order enlarging the certificate of authority of an electric public utility. Central Kansas Power Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 206 Kan. 670, 675, 482 P.2d 1.

20. Judicial review of commission's order granting certificate limited to lawfulness and reasonableness; order upheld. Graves Truck Line, Inc. v. State Corporation Commission, 215 Kan. 565, 569, 527 P.2d 1065.

21. 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, 1142.

22. Commission findings supported by evidence; court could not substitute its judgment for that of commission on appeal. Kansas-Nebraska Natural Gas Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 217 Kan. 604, 612, 616, 538 P.2d 702.

23. Review hereunder limited; commission's order unlawful under 66-128. Kansas Gas & Electric Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 218 Kan. 670, 678, 544 P.2d 1396.

24. Section did not give court authority to substitute its judgment for that of commission. Central Kansas Power Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 221 Kan. 505, 506, 511, 561 P.2d 779.

25. Referred to in determining exclusion of construction work in progress in rate base discretionary function of Corporation Commission. Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. KCC, 224 Kan. 86, 578 P.2d 254.

26. Section does not bind court to an administrative determination of constitutional or jurisdictional issues. City of Wichita v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 225 Kan. 524, 526, 592 P.2d 880.

27. Cited; KCC was authorized to weigh value of service more heavily than cost of service in establishing new rate schedule; judgment affirmed. Midwest Gas Users Ass'n v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 3 Kan. App. 2d 376, 380, 595 P.2d 735.

28. Section limits judicial review to whether order is lawful and reasonable; order upheld. Sekan Electric Coop. Ass'n v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 4 Kan. App. 2d 477, 609 P.2d 188.

29. Court limited to determining whether order is lawful or reasonable; statutory standard requiring reasonable utility rates higher than constitutional standard for due process. Kansas-Nebraska Natural Gas Co. v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 4 Kan. App. 2d 674, 675, 610 P.2d 121.

30. Standard of "reasonableness" is higher than the constitutional standard for due process. Kansas Power & Light Co. v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 5 Kan. App. 2d 514, 515, 516, 620 P.2d 329.

31. Judicial review limited to determination of whether orders, etc., are "lawful" and "reasonable." Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 6 Kan. App. 2d 444, 454, 629 P.2d 1174 (1981).

32. Separation of interstate and intrastate operations of utility required when considering whether increase in intrastate rates is justified. Elkhart Tel. Co. v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 7 Kan. App. 2d 235, 237, 640 P.2d 335 (1982).

33. Standards for review of state corporation commission order discussed; limited to whether order is lawful or reasonable. Pickrell Drilling Co. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 232 Kan. 397, 401, 654 P.2d 477 (1982).

34. Rules concerning scope of judicial review of orders of corporation commission considered; rate design for public utility. Gas Service Co. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 8 Kan. App. 2d 545, 662 P.2d 264 (1983).

35. Rules of construction of public utility tariff; statute limits judicial review to whether order is lawful and reasonable. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 233 Kan. 375, 376, 664 P.2d 798 (1983).

36. Scope of review considered; under Kansas siting act (66-1,177 et seq.), KCC limited to determination of reasonableness of line location only. Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 9 Kan. App. 2d 49, 52, 670 P.2d 1369 (1983).

37. District court not authorized to find order void and then proceed to implement requested rate increase. Oilfield Fluid Motor Carriers v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 234 Kan. 983, 991, 992, 677 P.2d 982 (1984).

38. District court not bound by commission findings of fact; independent findings on review of record. Robert-Gay Energy Enterprises, Inc. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 235 Kan. 951, 955, 685 P.2d 299 (1984).

39. Appellate review of KCC decisions limited to determination whether they are lawful and reasonable. In re Application of Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 9 Kan. App. 2d 525, 531, 685 P.2d 304 (1984).

40. Scope of judicial review of commission order considered. Northwest Cent. Popeline Corp. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 237 Kan. 248, 253, 699 P.2d 1002 (1985).

41. Cited; granting same increase received by interstate operation from FERC for lack of intrastate cost documentation reasonable and lawful. MAPCO Intrastate Pipeline Co. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 10 Kan. App. 2d 527, 533, 535, 704 P.2d 989 (1985).

42. Order is lawful if within statutory authority and prescribed rules followed; reasonable means based on substantial competent evidence. Chris Hunt Water Hauling Contractor, Inc. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 10 Kan. App. 2d 612, 614, 706 P.2d 825 (1985).

43. Abstention affirmed where Kansas statutes provide adequate state court review of orders of KCC. Robert-Gay Energy v. State Corp. Com'n of Kansas, 753 F.2d 857, 860, (1985).