Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. State Corp. Commission
| Decision Date | 02 November 1963 |
| Docket Number | 42185,Nos. 42175,42176,42230,42038,s. 42175 |
| Citation | 386 P.2d 288,192 Kan. 29 |
| Parties | COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS COMPANY, Northern Natural Gas Company, Cities Service Gas Company, and Kansas-Nebraska Natural Gas Company, Appellants and Cross-Appellees, v. The STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION of the State of Kansas, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, Southwest Kansas Royalty Owners Association, and Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, each a corporation, Appellees. SOUTHWEST KANSAS ROYALTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, a corporation, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. The STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION of the State of Kansas, Appellee, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, a corporation, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, Cities Service Gas Company, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, Northern Natural Gas Company, and Kansas-Nebraska Natural Gas Company, each a corporation, Appellees and Cross-Appellants. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The statute, G.S.1949, 55-606, providing for judicial review of orders made by the State Corporation Commission in administering the Gas Conservation Act, contemplates but one judicial review of such orders regardless of the number of parties aggrieved.
2. The district court, which first acquires jurisdiction of a petition to review an order of the Commission, has exclusive jurisdiction of the subject matter and the rights of the parties affected thereby, and a court of concurrent jurisdiction is without authority to entertain a subsequent petition for review of such order.
3. The 1959 amendment to the Gas Conservation Act being Chapter 237 of the Laws of 1959, now G.S.1961 Supp. 55-703, does not contain dual subjects and the subject is sufficiently expressed in the title. It is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority, and is not in violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions.
Malcolm Miller, Wichita, argued the cause, and L. M. Poe, Colorado Springs, Colo., Carl T. Smith and Stuart R. Carter, Wichita, were with him on the briefs for appellant, Colorado Interstate Gas Co.
Mark Adams, Wichita, argued the cause, and Conrad C. Mount, John T. Grant George E. Peabody and Charles V. Wheeler, Oklahoma City, Okl., D. B. Lang, Scott City, Lawrence I. Shaw, F. Vinson Roach and Patrick J. McCarthy, Omaha, Neb., Ray H. Calihan, Logan N. Green, Daniel R. Hopkins and Ray H. Calihan, Jr., Garden City, Charles B. Jones, William I. Robinson, J. Ashford Manka, Clifford L. Malone, Mark H. Adams, II, John S. Seeber, Floyd E. Jensen and Joe Rolston, Wichita, were with him on the briefs for appellants, Northern Natural Gas Co., and Cities Service Gas Co.
Douglas Gleason, Ottawa, argued the cause, and James D. Conway and Elmer J. Jackson, Hastings, Neb., Thomas E. Gleason and Jules V. Doty, Ottawa, and Hollis B. Logan, Topeka, were with him on the briefs for appellant, Kansas-Nebraska Natural Gas Co., Inc.
Richard C. Byrd, Ottawa, argued the cause, and J. Robert Wilson, John D. Townsend, Robert C. Londerholm, Charles R. Escola, Charles C. McCarter, Rex A. Jemison, Carl L. Wettig, and Glenn D. Young, Topeka, were with him on the briefs for the appellee, State Corporation Commission of State of Kansas.
Robert T. Cornwell, Wichita, argued the cause, and David W. Buxton, Wayne E. Coulson, Paul R. Kitch, Dale M. Stucky, Donald R. Newkirk, Gerrit H. Wormhoudt, Philip Kassebaum, John E. Rees, Robert T. Corwell, Willard B. Thompson, Hugo T. Wedell, and Homer V. Gooing, Wichita, A. E. Kramer and Bernard E. Nordling, Hugoton, were with him on the briefs for appellee, Southwest Kansas Royalty Owners' Ass'n.
Chas. Vance, Liberal, argued the cause, and C. C. Linley, Liberal, Wendell J. Doggett and C. A. Conoley, Kansas City, Mo., and Jeff A. Bobertson, Topeka, were with him on the briefs for appellee, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co.
HATCHER, Commissioner.
These appeals are from judgments rendered on petitions to review the orders of the State Corporation Commission determining the market demand for natural gas in the Kansas-Hugoton Gas Field for the six-months period beginning October 1, 1959, and extending through March 31, 1960, and also the monthly allowable for each month of such period.
The orders were litigated in two forums. The district court of Stevens County, Kansas entertained separate petitions to review filed by Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company (Panhandle) and Southwest Kansas Royalty Owners' Association (Royalty Owners'). They challenged the orders, contending that the determination of market demand and allowable production was unreasonably low. The district court of Finney County, Kansas entertained separate petitions to review filed by Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern Natural), Cities Service Gas Company (Cities Service), Colorado Interstate Gas Company (Colorado Interstate), and Kansas-Nebraska Natural Gas Company (Kansas-Nebraska). They challenge the orders contending, among other things, that the determination of market demand and allowable production was unreasonably high. (The parties will hereinafter be identified as indicated in the parenthesis.)
The separate petitions for review filed in the Finney County District Court were consolidated for hearing. The separate petitions for review filed in the Stevens County District Court were also consolidated. All the appeals involve the same orders and the same record. They will be considered in a single opinion.
The questions presented by these appeals were determined in Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 192 Kan. 2, 386 P.2d 266, insofar as they challenge the Commission's orders for the reason that they are not supported by substantial competent evidence; they violate the provisions of the Gas Conservation Act or the Commission's basic order; they constitute an interference with interstate commerce; they invade the province of the Federal Power Commission under the Natural Gas Act, or they violate the due process clause of the United States Constitution or impair the obligation of contracts. Undue repetition will be avoided if we incorporate that opinion here by reference as determinative of the issues mentioned. We do so.
There remains for determination the jurisdictional dispute between the two district courts, and the constitutionality and effect of G.S.1961 Supp. 55-703 which amended G.S.1949, 55-703.
On December 15, 1959, following the overruling of petitions for rehearing, Royalty Owner's filed petitions for judicial review of the market demand order and the October allowable order in the district court of Stevens County, Kansas. On December 16, 1959, Panhandle filed similar petitions for review in the same court. Subsequent thereto, Northern Natural, Cities Service, Colorado Interstate, and Kansas-Nebraska filed petitions for judicial review, respectively, of each of said orders in the district court of Finney County, Kansas. Thereafter, all six parties filed their several petitions for judicial review of each of the other monthly allowable orders, covering the period involved, in their chosen jurisdiction.
It would serve no useful purpose to review the various motions filed by the parites in an effort to bring all parties before the court of their preferred jurisdiction, or the orders in connection therewith.
It should be noted that the district court of Stevens County, subsequent to the hearing on the merits, ruled that the Commission's order is not subject to piecemeal review from case to case and court to court.
The district court of Finney County, subsequent to the hearing on the merits, ruled that each party was entitled to maintain a separate proceeding for review and that the only parties to the proceedings were those named in the capitions of the petitions for review.
The district court of Stevens County held a hearing on February 13, 1930, at which Northern Natural, Cities Service, and Colorado Interstate did not appear, although they received notice. On March 10, 1960, the court entered its judgment in which it found:
The judgment of the district court of Stevens County affirmed the orders in controversy.
The district court of Finney County held a hearing on February 23, 1960. Panhandle and Royalty Owners' were not permitted to participate because they had not filed petitions for review in that court. On May 26, 1960, the court entered its judgment holding valid the market demand order for the six-months period beginning October 1, 1959, extending through March 31, 1960. It further ordered that:
'* * * the several monthly proration orders entered by the State Corporation Commission for October, 1959, monthly, through March, 1960, should be, and the same are hereby, reversed and set aside insofar as the net allowables there set forth are greater by virtue of underages, either canceled or carried forward as a result of the Commission's departing from its former method of determining allowables beginning May, 1956, to October 1, 1959; and such monthly proration orders entered by the State Corporation Commission for the months of October, 1959, through March, 1960, are affirmed insofar as such orders disclose market demand and current allowables without adjustment to runs as determined by the Commission and net allowable determined by adding underage or subtracting overage from current...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. State Corp. Commission
...procedural question will be discussed in the opinion disposing of the appeals in the later cases. (Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. State Corporation Comm., 192 Kan. 29, 386 P.2d 288.) We may now proceed to discuss the basic issues Certain monthly allowable orders (November, 1957, through Jan......
-
Citizens' Utility Ratepayer Bd. v. State Corp. Com'n of State of Kan.
...the power to determine some fact or state of things upon which such law shall become operative.' " Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. State Corporation Comm., 192 Kan. 29, 37, 386 P.2d 288 (1963), cert. denied 379 U.S. 131, 85 S.Ct. 272, 13 L.Ed.2d 333 (1964) (quoting Water District No. 1 v. Ro......
-
Cities Service Gas Co. v. State Corp. Commission
...be fulfilled. (State ex rel. Anderson v. Fadely, 180 Kan. 652, 663, 308 P.2d 537, and cases cited; Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. State Corporation Comm., 192 Kan. 29, 30, 37, 386 P.2d 288; Wichita R. R. & Light Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 260 U.S. 48, 43 S.Ct. 51, 67 L.Ed. 124, 130, construin......
-
Cascade County Consumers Ass'n v. Public Service Commission
...Cascade court had no jurisdiction to issue the judgment here appealed from. They cite as authority Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 192 Kan. 29, 386 P.2d 288; In re Woodside-Florence Irrigation Dist., 121 Mont. 346, 194 P.2d 241; Larson v. Whitmer, 124 Mont. 399,......