TRANSIT SYSTEM, INC. v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 15967.
Decision Date | 18 May 1961 |
Docket Number | No. 15967.,15967. |
Citation | 292 F.2d 734,110 US App. DC 241 |
Parties | D. C. TRANSIT SYSTEM, INC., Appellant, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Harvey M. Spear, New York City, with whom Mr. Owen J. Malone, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. George F. Donnella, Counsel, Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia, with whom Messrs. Chester H. Gray, Gen. Counsel, Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia, and Andrew G. Conlyn, Counsel, Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia, were on the brief, for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, Senior United States Circuit Judge of the Tenth Circuit,* and BAZELON and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order of the District Court granting summary judgment, on cross motions, in favor of the appellee Commission in this suit by appellant Transit Company to set aside the Commission's order of September 30, 1959. The court held, in a memorandum opinion, that the Commission's order, directing the transit company to transfer $613,661.28 of the proceeds of the sale of property, from its earned surplus account to three different accounts, was not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.
Sections 43-310 and 43-314, D.C.Code (1951), confer broad discretion upon the Public Utilities Commission in regulating the accounting procedures of utility companies under its jurisdiction. Our function in reviewing the Commission's orders and decisions is limited to questions of law, including constitutional questions; and the Commission's findings of fact are conclusive unless it appears that the findings are unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. D.C.Code § 43-706 (1951). We find no error on the part of the District Court in determining that the Commission's order of September 30, 1959, was not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. We see no constitutional question involved.
Affirmed.
* Sitting by designation pursuant to § 294(d), Title 28 U.S.Code.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Democratic Cent. Committee of District of Columbia v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Com'n
...at 29, J.App. vol. 1; see D.C. Transit Sys., Inc. (Order No. 4577), 30 Pub.Util.Rep. (PUR) 3d 405, 405 (PUC 1959), aff'd, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 241, 292 F.2d 734 (1961).36 D.C. Transit Sys., Inc. (Order No. 4577), supra note 35.37 30 Pub.Util.Rep. (PUR) 3d at 410.38 Id.39 Id. at 411 & n. 1.40 Id......
-
Democratic Cent. Com. of DC v. Washington MAT Com'n
...uniform accounting rules26 and such rules are controlling unless clearly arbitrary and capricious. D.C. Transit Sys., Inc. v. P.U.C., 110 U.S.App.D.C. 241, 292 F.2d 734 (1961). Public utility regulation cases are replete with recitations of the principle that deference is to be accorded an ......
-
Wash. Pub. Interest Org. v. Public Serv. Com'n
...independent of the uniform accounting system. For example, in Re D.C. Transit System, Inc., 30 P.U.R.3d 405, aff'd, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 241, 292 F.2d 734 (1961), the Commission's predecessor, the District of Columbia Public Utilities Commission (PUC), abandoned the normal accounting treatment ......
-
Watergate Improvement Assoc. v. Public Serv. Com'n
...Goodman v. Public Service Com'n of District of Columbia, D.C.Cir., 497 F.2d 661 (1974); D. C. Transit System, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com'n of D. of C., 110 U.S.App.D.C. 241, 292 F.2d 734 (1961); Washington Gas Light Co. v. Baker, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 115, 118-119, 188 F.2d 11, 14-15 (1950), ce......