Ortiz v. Public Service Commission of Puerto Rico, No. 3435.

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
Writing for the CourtWILSON and MAGRUDER, Circuit , and McLELLAN
Citation108 F.2d 815
PartiesORTIZ et al. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF PUERTO RICO et al.
Docket NumberNo. 3435.
Decision Date18 January 1940

108 F.2d 815 (1940)

ORTIZ et al.
v.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF PUERTO RICO et al.

No. 3435.

Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

January 18, 1940.


Francis H. Dexter and Dexter & Dexter, all of San Juan, P. R., and William Cattron Rigby, of Washington, D. C. (B. Fernandez Garcia, of San Juan, P. R., and Nathan R. Margold, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee Public Service Commission.

F. Fernandez Cuyar, of San Juan, P. R. (Celestino Iriarte, Jr., and H. Gonzalez Blanes, both of San Juan, P. R., on the brief), for appellee White Star Bus Line, Inc.

Before WILSON and MAGRUDER, Circuit Judges, and McLELLAN, District Judge.

MAGRUDER, Circuit Judge.

Three owners of motor vehicles, engaged in transportation for hire, appealed to the District Court of San Juan from an order of the Public Service Commission of Puerto Rico, pursuant to Section 78 of the Public Service Act of Puerto Rico (Laws of P. R., 1917, p. 526). The District Court found that the order appealed from was "reasonable and in conformity with law" and therefore entered a decree dismissing the appeal and affirming the order of the Commission, as provided in Section 85 of

108 F.2d 816
the Public Service Act, Laws of P. R., 1917, p. 532. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico on July 26, 1938, rendered a final judgment of affirmance, which judgment is the subject of the present appeal to this court

Appellee moves to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that application for appeal was not made within three months after the entry of the judgment, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 230, 28 U. S.C.A. § 230.

The judgment below was rendered July 26, 1938. On August 4, 1938, appellants filed in the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico a petition entitled Motion to Vacate the Judgment and to Withhold the Mandate until the Motion is Passed Upon — in effect, a petition for rehearing. The court not then being in session, its Chief Justice directed the entry of an order on August 5, 1938, reading: "Let the two preceding motions be passed to the court in its first session." Upon reconvening, the court on November 10, 1938, summarily denied the motion without a hearing or written opinion. On February 2, 1939, appellants again moved in the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico for a rehearing and, in the alternative, applied to be allowed to appeal to the circuit court of appeals. Both these requests were denied, on February 7, 1939. In its order denying the petition for appeal on the ground that it had been applied for after the lapse of three months from the rendition of final judgment in the case, the Supreme Court recited that the motion for rehearing filed on August 4, 1938, "was on the 10th day of November, 1938 denied without a hearing or written opinion and therefore was not entertained by the court. * * *"

Meanwhile, appellants had presented to a judge of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Denholm & McKay Co. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev., No. 3797.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • December 14, 1942
    ...the petition for rehearing has not been entirely clear, as we had occasion to observe in Ortiz v. Public Service Commission, 1 Cir., 1940, 108 F.2d 815, 817. Apparently it means merely that the court considers on the merits the grounds urged in the petition for rehearing. See Texas Pacific ......
  • Papanikolaou v. Atlantic Freighters
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • April 9, 1956
    ...the court will ordinarily consider such petition on its merits, i. e., entertain it. Ortiz v. Public Service Commission, 1 Cir., 1940, 108 F.2d 815, 816; Warren v. Territory of Hawaii, 9 Cir., 1941, 119 F.2d 936, 938, 939. It is not requisite that the motion for rehearing be set down for ar......
  • Fernandez v. Carrasquillo, No. 3964.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • December 18, 1944
    ...the court will ordinarily consider such petition on its merits, i. e., entertain it. Ortiz v. Public Service Commission, 1 Cir., 1940, 108 F.2d 815, 816; Warren v. Territory of Hawaii, 9 Cir., 1941, 119 F.2d 936, 938, 939. It is not requisite that the motion for rehearing be set down for ar......
  • Albertson v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 10305.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • May 22, 1951
    ...Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 1937, 300 U.S. 131, 57 S.Ct. 382, 81 L.Ed. 557; Ortiz v. Public Service Commission, 1 Cir., 1940, 108 F. 2d 815. We conclude that the Commission did have authority to entertain the motion; that consideration thereof on the merits suspended running of the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Denholm & McKay Co. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev., No. 3797.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • December 14, 1942
    ...the petition for rehearing has not been entirely clear, as we had occasion to observe in Ortiz v. Public Service Commission, 1 Cir., 1940, 108 F.2d 815, 817. Apparently it means merely that the court considers on the merits the grounds urged in the petition for rehearing. See Texas Pacific ......
  • Papanikolaou v. Atlantic Freighters
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • April 9, 1956
    ...the court will ordinarily consider such petition on its merits, i. e., entertain it. Ortiz v. Public Service Commission, 1 Cir., 1940, 108 F.2d 815, 816; Warren v. Territory of Hawaii, 9 Cir., 1941, 119 F.2d 936, 938, 939. It is not requisite that the motion for rehearing be set down for ar......
  • Fernandez v. Carrasquillo, No. 3964.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • December 18, 1944
    ...the court will ordinarily consider such petition on its merits, i. e., entertain it. Ortiz v. Public Service Commission, 1 Cir., 1940, 108 F.2d 815, 816; Warren v. Territory of Hawaii, 9 Cir., 1941, 119 F.2d 936, 938, 939. It is not requisite that the motion for rehearing be set down for ar......
  • Albertson v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 10305.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • May 22, 1951
    ...Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 1937, 300 U.S. 131, 57 S.Ct. 382, 81 L.Ed. 557; Ortiz v. Public Service Commission, 1 Cir., 1940, 108 F. 2d 815. We conclude that the Commission did have authority to entertain the motion; that consideration thereof on the merits suspended running of the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT