Wiley v. Oklahoma Natural Gas Co.
| Decision Date | 10 July 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 42432,42432 |
| Citation | 429 P.2d 957 |
| Parties | Louise WILEY, and All Other Persons Similarly, Situated, Plaintiffs, v. The OKLAHOMA NATURAL GAS COMPANY and the Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma, Defendants. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Where the Supreme Court is without jurisdiction to grant the relief sought in an original action, the cause will be dismissed.
Original proceeding in which this Court is asked to assume original jurisdiction and declare certain rate orders of the Corporation Commission, enacted by the Commission in its legislative capacity, void. Application denied and cause dismissed.
Joe Cannon, Bethany, for plaintiffs.
Robert A. Huffman, John L. Arrington, Jr., Frederic Dorwart, Lupardus, Holliman & Huffman, Tulsa, for defendant Oklahoma Natural Gas Co.
T. Earl Curb, Oklahoma City, Gen. Counsel for the Corporation Commission, for defendant Corporation Commission of Oklahoma.
Louise Wiley, for herself and others similarly situated, has filed an original action in this Court praying this Court to declare gas rate increases for Oklahoma Natural Gas Company in 1957 and 1963 void, and then require refunds in the amount of the 'overpayments' resulting from the void orders.
The basis for relief is the allegation that members of the Corporation Commission were influenced in approving rate increases in 1957 and 1963 by 'contributions and favors' received from a lobbyist of Oklahoma Natural Gas Company. For this reason it is asserted the rate increases are void. There is no allegation that the rate increases were excessive or unconstitutional.
Plaintiffs' error in filing the case in this Court is based upon the erroneous assumption that rate orders of the Commission may be attacked as if they were judgments of a Court. It is universally recognized that the fixing of rate schedules for public utilities is a legislative process, and that a public service regulatory body acts in a legislative capacity in approving rate schedules. It necessarily follows that a rate order is a legislative enactment and not a judgment of a Court. Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line, 211 U.S. 210, 29 S.Ct. 67, 53 L.Ed. 150; Pioneer T. and T. Co. v. State, 40 Okl. 417, 138 P. 1033; 43 Am.Jur. Public Utilities and Services, Sec. 226; City of Poteau v. American Indian Oil and Gas Co., 159 Okl. 240, 18 P.2d 523; Ft. Smith and W. Ry. Co. v. State, 25 Okl. 866, 108 P. 107; Community Natural Gas Co. v. Corporation Commission, 182 Okl. 137, 76 P.2d 393; Western Oklahoma Gas and Fuel Co. v. State, 113 Okl. 126, 239 P. 588.
In the last cited case this Court said, at page 591 of the Pacific Reporter that '* * * in the last analysis an order of the Corporation Commission fixing rates is entitled to the same consideration as if the Legislature had fixed them * * *.'
It is equally well settled that the judiciary cannot annul or pronounce void any act of the Legislature on any ground other than that of repugnancy to the constitution. Constitutionality of legislative acts is to be determined solely by reference to the limits imposed by the constitution. The Court may not inquire into the motives of the Legislature, as motives cannot be made a subject of judicial inquiry for the purpose of invalidating an act of the legislature. 16 Am.Jur.2d, Constitution Law, Secs. 158, 163, 169.
It is argued that this Court may vacate the Commission's rate orders established in 1957 and 1963 and order refunds without fixing rates for Oklahoma Natural Gas Company. In Consumers' Gas Co. v. Corporation Commission, 95 Okl. 57, 219 P. 126, this Court held that a natural gas utility is entitled to earn a reasonable return on its investment and a reasonable amount for depreciation and amortization. To hold otherwise would authorize the taking of private property without just compensation, contrary to constitutional provisions. How it is possible for this court to strike down the 19...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cox Telecom v. State ex rel. Corp. Com'n, 102,392.
...in those cases is related to rates or rate making in a remotely similar fashion to that present in this proceeding. 25. Wiley v. Okla. Natural Gas Co., 1967 OK 152, ¶ 3, 429 P.2d 957, 958; Turpen v. Okla. Corp. Comm'n, 1988 OK 126, ¶ 76, 769 P.2d 1309, 26. In Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.......
-
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Oklahoma Corp. Com'n
...Bell Tel. Co., 662 P.2d 675 (Okla.1983); Chickasha Cotton Oil Co. v. Corp. Comm., 562 P.2d 507 (Okla.1977); Wiley v. Oklahoma Natural Gas Co., 429 P.2d 957 (Okla.1967). In Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line, 211 U.S. 210, 29 S.Ct. 67, 53 L.Ed. 150 (1908), the Supreme Court of the United States ......
-
Sabine Corp. v. ONG Western, Inc.
...part from constitutional prohibitions against taking of private property without just compensation. See, e.g., Wiley v. Oklahoma Natural Gas Co., 429 P.2d 957, 958 (Okla.1967). Thus, rates which would not permit a utility to earn a reasonable return on its investment or which would impair i......
-
And Okla. Energy Results LLC. v. Corp. (In re Okla. Gas & Elec. Co.)
...¶ 9, 873 P.2d 1001.25 Prentis, 211 U.S. at 226, 29 S.Ct. 67 ; CoxOklahomaTelecom, LLC, 2007 OK 55, ¶ 11, 164 P.3d 150.26 Wiley v. Okla. NaturalGasCo., 1967 OK 152, ¶ 3, 429 P.2d 957 ; Turpen v. Okla. Corp. Comm'n, 1988 OK 126, ¶ 76, 769 P.2d 1309.27 CoxOklahomaTelecom, LLC, 2007 OK 55, ¶ 15......