66-118k. Same; duty of court if order not sustained. If the court upon review does not uphold the action of the commission, the court shall transmit to the commission three certified copies of the judgment of the court and the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Thereupon, if any charge, classification or or practice is set aside in whole or in part by the court, it shall be the duty of the public utility, common carrier or petitioner affected by the judgment of the court, to initiate and file a new rate, fare, toll, rental, charge or classification, and the commission may investigate and approve or set aside such proposed rate, charge, fare, toll, rental or classification under the provisions of the law applying to the state corporation commission.
History: L. 1929, ch. 220, § 11; L. 1986, ch. 318, § 120; July 1.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
Review of history of regulations, Marion Beatty, 27 J.B.A.K. 186, 191 (1958).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Nature and scope of appellate review of commission's judicial orders determined. Union Pac. Rld. Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 165 Kan. 368, 371, 372, 194 P.2d 939.
2. Commission's rate order broader than rate hearing notice held void. Atchison, T. & S.F. Rld. Co. v. State Corporation Comm., 166 Kan. 548, 551, 552, 203 P.2d 211.
3. Motor carrier permit; nature and scope of appellate review; power of court. Rock Island Motor Transit Co. v. State Corporation Comm., 169 Kan. 487, 491, 493, 219 P.2d 405.
4. Intrastate freight rates established by commission on basis of carrier's voluntary rates; reasonable. Thompson v. State Corporation Commission, 173 Kan. 357, 362, 246 P.2d 257.
5. Oral statement by court failed to comply with requirements of section. City of McPherson v. State Corporation Commission, 174 Kan. 407, 411, 414, 257 P.2d 123.
6. Nature and scope of appellate review considered. Atchison, T. & S.F. Rly. Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 182 Kan. 603, 609, 611, 322 P.2d 715.
7. Commission's order refusing discontinuance of passenger trains held unlawful; public necessity. St. Louis-San Francisco Rly. Co. v. State Corporation Comm., 187 Kan. 23, 24, 353 P.2d 505.
8. Findings of fact and conclusions of law to be transmitted to commission. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 192 Kan. 39, 44, 91, 386 P.2d 515.
9. Legislature intended to supplement basic principles of administrative law by enactment of this statute; error in not finding commission's order void on its face. Cities Service Gas Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 201 Kan. 223, 235, 236, 440 P.2d 660.
10. 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).
|
|