Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000283 170

Image

File
Download upr000283-170.tif (image/tiff; 26.12 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000283-170
    Details

    Rights

    This material is made available to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. It may be protected by copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity rights, or other interests not owned by UNLV. Users are responsible for determining whether permissions are necessary from rights owners for any intended use and for obtaining all required permissions. Acknowledgement of the UNLV University Libraries is requested. For more information, please see the UNLV Special Collections policies on reproduction and use (https://www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/research_and_services/reproductions) or contact us at special.collections@unlv.edu.

    Digital Provenance

    Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room

    Publisher

    University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Libraries

    There Is a substantial record in this case. The Water Company made a complete disclosure of the basic facts relating to its operations and of those of the Railroad Com­pany to enable the Commission to decide the case. The evi­dence submitted by the Water Company was in more detail than the evidence which is ordinarily introduced in such cases. Evidence based upon the books and records kept by a public service company is entitled to a presumption of correctness. At the hearing, neither the Commission or any party questioned the authenticity of recorded figures, nor did the Commission indicate any desire to have additional evidence on any point. The evidence submitted by the Water Company was more than sufficient to justify the increases sought, and no further hearing is needed in this case to enable the Com­mission to furnish the petitioner with proper relief if the Commission will carefully and fairly consider the existing record. Nevertheless, we do not wish to foreclose a further hearing on any point if the Commission does not think it has sufficient evidence on that point. For that reason we have made this petition in the alternative for a reconsideration or for a rehearing. However, we cannot emphasize too -strong­ly that it will be most unfair to the petitioner and constit­ute an unlawful taking of its property without due process of law if the Commission fails to afford the petitioner imme­diate and substantial additional relief upon the record al­ready made. This should be done first, and if the Commission