Gerst v. Guardian Savings and Loan Association
| Citation | 434 S.W.2d 113 |
| Decision Date | 13 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. B--870,B--870 |
| Parties | James O. GERST, Savings and Loan Commissioner of Texas, et al., Petitioners, v. GUARDIAN SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Crawford C. Martin, Atty. Gen., Ray McGregor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jacobsen & Long, Joe R. Long, Austin, for petitioners.
Health, Davis & McCalla, Dudley D. McCalla, Austin, for respondent.
This case arose from competing applications filed with the Savings and Loan Commissioner of Texas for the establishment of facilities at the same intersection in Richardson, Texas. Guardian Savings and Loan Association, respondent here, filed the first application. An hour later, Richardson Savings and Loan Association filed its application. The Commissioner granted Richardson's application, but refused to grant the first-filed application of Guardian. On appeal to the district court, the order denying Guardian's application was set aside as having no support in substantial evidence. The order granting Richardson's application was also upheld. 1 The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. 425 S.W.2d 382. The Commissioner and Richardson Savings are petitioners here. Their position is that the Commissioner was justified in finding that there was a public need for the granting of one of the applications, and that the Commissioner's orders granting Richardson's application and denying Guardian's are reasonably supported by substantial evidence.
Each association sought approval for a branch office to be located on opposite corners of the intersection of Beltline and Coit Roads. Coit Road marks the corporate boundary between Dallas and the town of Richardson. The area each association proposed to serve from this location was roughly the same. It extended two miles north to the Dallas County line, two miles west to Dallas North Toll Road, two miles south to the Johnson Freeway, and a somewhat lesser distance east to Central Expressway which passed through the center of downtown Richardson.
The orders issued by the Commissioner indicate that it was his opinion that the market area would not support the savings and loan facilities of both Richardson and Guardian; that there was a public need for only one. In his order denying Guardian's application, the Commissioner indicated that his previous approval that same day of Richardson's application necessitated findings unfavorable to Guardian on the requirements of public need for the proposed association and sufficient volume of business in the area to support a profitable operation.
Our recent decisions set out the standard of review to be applied by this Court in determining whether an order of the Savings and Loan Commissioner is valid. His orders are presumed to be a valid exercise of the power and discretion conferred on him. The courts have no authority simply to substitute their judgment for his to determine whether the Commissioner reached the proper fact conclusion on the basis of conflicting evidence. On the other hand, the Commissioner is not empowered to exercise unbridled discretion; his findings must be reasonably supported by substantial evidence, i.e., they may not be arbitrary, capricious, and made without regard to the facts. Gerst v. Oak Cliff Savings and Loan Association, 432 S.W.2d 702 (1968); Gerst v. Nixon, 411 S.W.2d 350 (Tex.Sup.1967); Gerst v. Cain, 338 S.W.2d 168 (Tex.Sup.1965); Phillips v. Brazosport Savings and Loan Association, 366 S.W.2d 929 (Tex.Sup.1963).
A review of the record leads us to the conclusion that there is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's finding that the market area in question would support only one new savings and loan facility.
Having decided that the Commissioner was justified in granting only one of the two competing applications, the problem remains as to whether he was also justified in granting Richardson's application and in denying that of the Guardian association.
There is substantial evidence that on matters of management, capital, and some other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gulf States Utilities Co. v. Coalition of Cities for Affordable Utility Rates
...costs." In weighing the credibility of the evidence, the Commission was performing its proper function. Gerst v. Guardian Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 434 S.W.2d 113, 116 (Tex.1968); Texas State Bd. of Dental We note the dissent comes to a different conclusion by limiting the utility's burden to goin......
-
City of El Paso v. Public Utility Com'n of Texas
...corollary power to judge credibility and to accept or reject a witness's testimony in whole or in part. Gerst v. Guardian Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 434 S.W.2d 113, 116 (Tex.1968); Texas State Bd. of Dental Examiners v. Silagi, 766 S.W.2d 280, 283 (Tex.App.1989, writ EPEC maintains that, based on i......
-
Talent v. City of Abilene
...of the City of Abilene is presumed to be a valid exercise of the power and discretion conferred upon it. Gerst v. Guardian Savings and Loan Association,434 S.W.2d 113 (Tex.1968). If the findings of the commission had any reasonable basis in fact and were not arbitrary and capricious, its or......
-
Lewis v. Southmore Savings Association
...order of the Commissioner is presumed to be a valid exercise of the power and discretion conferred on him. Gerst v. Guardian Savings and Loan Association, 434 S.W.2d 113 (Tex.1968). Petitioners present five points of error in this Court under which they seek to support the Commissioner's fi......