LACLEDE GAS LIGHT CO.
v.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from Laclede Gas Light Company challenging a Missouri Public Service Commission order reducing utility rates on constitutional grounds because the Missouri Supreme Court's decision was not final. The state court had affirmed the rate reduction but remanded the case to the Commission to reexamine certain factual questions regarding property valuation, leaving open the possibility of further proceedings and additional appeals, and the Court held that jurisdiction to review a state court judgment in the Supreme Court requires a final decision on the merits.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
Appellee, the Public Service Commission of Missouri, moves to-dismiss the appeal Upon the ground that there is no final judgment.
The Supreme Court of Missouri had before it an aprpeal from á judgment of the Circuit' Court which had affirmed an order of the Public Service Commission fixing the value for rate making purposes of the property of the Laclede Gas Light Company and ordering a reduction in rates. The Company contended that the Com mission’s order was confiscatory, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. The Supreme Court reviewed at length the findings of the Commission and concluded that there should be a reexamination by the Commission of certain questions of fact as to elements of value. After stating these questions, the opinion of the Supreme Court concluded as follows:
“Subject to the foregoing, the judgment is affirmed’ and the cause remanded, with directions to the circuit court to remand to the commission that it may rehear and determine the facts on the four points above mentioned in accordance with the views in this opinion.” 110 S. W. (2d) 749, 780.
The Public Service Commission contends that under the statutes of Missouri (R. S. Mo. 1929, § 5234) the Supreme Court of Missouri reviews the order of the Commission judicially, Lusk v. Atkinson, 268 Mo. 109, 118; 186 S. W. 703; State ex rel. Detroit-Chicago Motor Bus Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 324 Mo. 270, 275 ; 23 S. W. 2d 115; State ex rel. St. Louis v. Public Service Comm’n, 329 Mo. 918, 927; 47 S. W. 2d 102; State ex rel. Kansas City P. & L. Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 335 Mo. 1248, 1265; 76 S. W. 2d 343; that the Commission acts legislatively (id.); that, on the remand in this case, each of the matters-mentioned by the Supreme Court will be before the Commission and that it may proceed a new in the exercise of its discretion in their determination. The Commission adds:
“The Commission may, therefore, make a new. finding of "fair value’ substantially different from the one found, as of the date of the former hearing. Moreover, such a new finding of ‘fair value’ together with new findings concerning the allowance, for annual depreciation and amortization of cost of change-over expense would nécessitate the fixing of a new rate schedule. “From the very nature of the various items remanded for rehearing, it is conceivable that the Commission may reach conclusions which would constitute the basis of another appeal.
“For the reasons stated appellee contends that there is not yet a final judgment , from which an appeal can be taken.”
We think that the contention of the Commission is well taken. '
Appellant urges that, under the mandate of the Su>preme Court, it would be the duty , of the Circuit Court to proceed .at once to execute its judgment affirming the fate reduction order, by distributing to the customers of appellant the amounts which have been held by a designated depositary, under order of .the cotfrt, pending, the final determination of the validity of -the-rate order. No ruling of the state court for ,such a distribution is before üs. ' The judgment of the Supreme Court does not direct, the payment over of the amounts on deposit, and the direction of the court for remand to the Commission for further examination of the questions stated, apparently leaves in abeyance the final determination of the yalidity of the rate order and may result, as the Commission states, in action which may constitute the basis of another appeal.-. The Supreme Court expressly states that the affirmance of the judgment of the Circuit Court is subject to the requirement of reexamination by the.Com-mission as directed.
As we are unable to conclude upon .the record before .us that the state court has finally disposed of the controversy the motion to dismiss the appeal must be granted.
Dismissed.
Mr. Justice Cardozo took no part in the consideration and decision of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Egan Chevrolet Co. v. Bruner (three cases), 102 F.2d 373 (8th Cir. 1939)…cause of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188, 114 A.L.R. 1487, on the ground that the case was decided without regard to what might be the common law of Missouri, where the accident occurred, 304 U.S. 397, 58 S.Ct. 954, 82 L.Ed. 1422), affirmed on reargument, 8 Cir., 102 F. 2d 96, opinion filed March 6, 1939. A retail dealer who takes a used truck in trade and undertakes to repair and recondition it for resale for use upon the public highways owes a duty to the public to use re…
-
Passwaters v. Gen. Motors Corp., 454 F.2d 1270 (8th Cir. 1972)…urer owes to the public a duty, irrespective of contract, to use reasonable care in the manufacture of an automobile. . . .” (Emphasis ours.) Hudson v. Moonier, 94 F. 2d 132, 136-137 (8 Cir. 1938), rev’d on other grounds, 304 U.S. 397, 58 S.Ct. 954, 82 L.Ed. 1422, on remand, 102 F. 2d 96, 100 (8 Cir. 1939), cert, denied, 307 U.S. 639, 59 S. Ct. 1037, 83 L.Ed. 1520. And as we more recently observed: “We can perceive of no significant difference in imposing a common law duty of a reasonable standard of care i…
-
Champlin Ref. Co. v. Walker, 113 F.2d 844 (8th Cir. 1940)…diversity óf citizenship of the parties. The question here presented must be determined by the law of Minnesota. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188, 114 A.L.R. 1487; Hudson v. Moonier, 304 U.S. 397, 58 S.Ct. 954, 82 L.Ed. 1422. In reviewing the ruling of the lower court on a motion for a directed verdict, the question presented is whether or not there was substantial evidence to sustain a verdict. In determining that question, we must accept as true the evidence favorabl…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence