Central Oklahoma Freight Lines, Inc. v. Corporation Commission
| Citation | 1971 OK 57,484 P.2d 877 |
| Decision Date | 27 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 42778,42778 |
| Parties | CENTRAL OKLAHOMA FREIGHT LINES, INC., Plaintiff in Error, v. The CORPORATION COMMISSION of the State of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Subject to limitations and conditions imposed upon District Courts the Corporation Commission of Oklahoma has power and authority to utilize nunc pro tunc proceedings to correct inadvertent, ministerial and clerical errors so that its written order or decision may reflect the order of decision that was actually rendered by the Commission.
Application of Central Oklahoma Freight Lines, Inc., to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, for authority to operate class A motor carrier service over designated routes; from the order of the Commission granting only a part of the authority sought, Central appeals. Order affirmed.
Rufus H. Lawson, William L. Peterson, Jr., Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Richard H. Champlin, John B. Dudley, Oklahoma City, for contestants, Triangle Express, Inc., H.A. Day Truck Lines, Ryan Freight Lines, Inc., and Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc.; McAfee, Dudley, Taft, Cates & Mark, Oklahoma City, of Counsel.
Robert L. Mills, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.
The first question is whether the Corporation Commission of Oklahoma has power and authority in nunc pro tunc proceedings to correct inadvertent, ministerial and clerical errors which erroneously reflects a decision not rendered by the Commission. We hold that it does.
Central Oklahoma Freight Lines, Inc., applied to the Commission for authority to operate Class 'A' Motor Carrier Service on essentially four different routes in Oklahoma.
A referee of the Commission after hearing evidence in support of the application filed a report recommending that authority to serve all four routes, describing them, be granted. The Commission, after review of the record and recommendation of the referee, found that 'the evidence submitted does not support the granting of this application in full' and that the proposed authority 'should be limited' to one particular route which was described at length in the same sentence. However, in the 'granting' part of the order, the Commission, although ordering that the referee's conclusions be 'modified as above indicated', proceeded to grant authority to serve all four routes, describing them in language identical with that used by the referee in his recommendation. The conflict between the 'findings' and 'granting' parts of the order is readily apparent upon casual examination, and it appears as stated in the Commission's brief, the draftsman who prepared the Commission's order copied the latter part of the order from the wrong instrument.
The mistake was immediately discovered and six days later the Commission corrected its order, without notice to Central, to accurately reflect the decision of the Commission. In the meantime a Certificate of Authority had been routinely issued to Central in which all four routes were described as in the referee's recommendation and in the Commission's original order.
Upon receiving a copy of the corrected order Central took the position that it was void for lack of notice and a hearing. Nunc pro tunc proceedings were then conducted by the Commission. The Commission found that the mistake was made by a draftsman and did not reflect the decision of the Commission, and corrected its order and the Certificate of Authority to accurately reflect the decision which had been made by the Commission.
The original order is contradictory upon its face. The original order shows that the Commission's findings would support the granting of a Certificate of Authority for only one route, not four.
We have held that the Industrial Commission may utilize nunc pro tunc proceedings. City of Shawnee v. Kinnamon (1952), 207 Okl. 299, 249 P.2d 417; McQuiston v. Tyler (1940), 186 Okl. 315, 97 P.2d 552; Parkhill Truck Co. v. Emery (1933), 166 Okl. 280, 27 P.2d 333.
In the early case of Bell v. Hearne (1857), 19 How. (U.S.) 252, 15 L.Ed. 614, the question was whether the Commissioner of the General Land Office had authority to correct a clerical mistake. That court held that the power to correct clerical mistakes is a necessary power in the administration of every department. The Bell case, and others, are cited in 2 Am.Jur.2d § 521, in support of the statement that administrative agencies have power to correct clerical...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mullendore v. Mercy Hosp. Ardmore
...added) (citations omitted) (citing Union Tex. Petroleum v. Corp. Comm'n , 1981 OK 86, ¶ 31, 651 P.2d 652, 662 ; Cent. Okla. Freight Lines v. Corp. Comm'n , 1971 OK 57, ¶ 15, 484 P.2d 877, 879 ; Chenoweth v. Pan Am. Petroleum Corp. , 1963 OK 108, 382 P.2d 743 ); see also Black's Law Dictiona......
-
Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. v. State
...Gas Company, Okl., 558 P.2d 376 (1976); Union Texas Pet., et al. v. Corporation Comm'n, et al., Okl. 651 P.2d 652 (1981)."43 "484 P.2d 877 (Okl.1971)."44 "640 P.2d 1336 (Okl.1981)."45 Art. 9, § 20, Okla. Const.46 Tr.Vol. VI, p. 599.47 Tr.Vol. III, p. 497.48 Supra note 43.49 Supra note 43 at......
-
Union Texas Petroleum, A Div. of Allied Chemical Corp. v. Corporation Com'n of State of Okl.
...a measurement of the supportive points to determine whether the criterion of substantiality is present. Central Okla. Freight Lines v. Corporation Com'n, 484 P.2d 877, 879 (Okl.1971). A review of supportive facts here present compels the conclusion that the order is supported by substantial......
-
Mullins v. Ward
...supply a record of something that was actually done or decided but was incorrectly memorialized. Central Oklahoma Freight Lines, Inc. v. Corporation Commission, Okl., 484 P.2d 877, 878 [1971]. A nunc pro tunc proceeding cannot be used to modify or amend a former judgment to make it a judgme......