Image
Copyright & Fair-use Agreement
UNLV Special Collections provides copies of materials to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. Material not in the public domain may be used according to fair use of copyrighted materials as defined by copyright law. Please cite us.
Please note that UNLV may not own the copyright to these materials and cannot provide permission to publish or distribute materials when UNLV is not the copyright holder. The user is solely responsible for determining the copyright status of materials and obtaining permission to use material from the copyright holder and for determining whether any permissions relating to any other rights are necessary for the intended use, and for obtaining all required permissions beyond that allowed by fair use.
Read more about our reproduction and use policy.
I agree.Information
Digital ID
Permalink
Details
More Info
Rights
Digital Provenance
Publisher
Transcription
N fixing rates fpr the transportation of logs on the ground that it was not supported by the evidence in the case. The Court said: ”The mere admission by an administrative tribunal * of matter which, under the rules of to judicial proceedings, would be de eemveidde nicnec omappeptleinctable 2($U$n,i te6d$ LS.t atEde.s v1.0 16A,b i1l0e2n2e,' &?4 S4. RS.u p.CCo.t .R2e6p5. U'.5 6S5.),' 27o4r, mere error in reasoning upon evidence introduced, does not invalidate an order. But where rates found by a regu- latory body to be compensatory are attacked as being wcohnifcihs ciattso rcyo,n clcuosuirtosn wmaasy rienaqcuhierde . inAtno tohred emre tbhaosde d byu pon a finding made without evidence (Chicago Junction Case (Baltimore & 0 R.Co. v.'United States) 264 U;S. 25$, 2 6 3, 6$ L. ed. 667, 6 7 3 , 44 Sup.Ct.Rep, 317), or upon a finding made upon evidence which clearly does not support it (Interstate- Commerce Commission- v. 'Union P. RC.t . CRo.e p.22120$ )U,; iSs. a5n41 ,a rb54i7t,r ar5y6 aL.c t eda.g ai3n0$s,t w3h11i,c h 32c ouSurpt.s afford relief. The error under discussion was of this character. It was a denial of due process.” 4 In the case of Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad Co. t v. Public Utilities Commission (Utah), 17 Pac, 2d. 2$7, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah reversed a decision o f the State Public Utilities Commission denying the Railroad’s application to discontinue agency service at the station of Faust. In deciding the case the Commission had relied in part upon evidence which it had received in another case involving the station of St. John on the same Railroad. One of the grounds for setting the order aside was the action taken by the Commission in relying upon the evidence in the other case. The Court said: !?Can the commission take into consideration t he Jkonhonw leSdtgaet itohna tC asiet rase cteoi vethde atm etthhoed sh,e arpirancgt iicne st,h e aSntd. incidents attendant to the shipping of live stock to and from St. John and apply it to this case^because the two stations exist under essentially similar phy- -23-