upr000280 156

Re: LVL&WCo. v. PUBLIC No. 18845 SERVICE COMMISSION Of NEVADA. In line with our conversation with Mr. Stoddard and Mr. Reinhardt concerning this case I suggest that you im- miend itahet elcays en owtiitfhyi nt he2 0 Adtatyosr.ney General to file an answer I have discussed the matter with Mr. Renwick, and we believe that eventually we shall have to dismiss the Pe­tition for Rehearing if we go ahead with the trial of the ease against the Commission. If we did not do this, it appears to us that at the last moment before trial the Commission could grant our Petition for Rehearing, in which event the Court would probably take the position that the action was moot until the Commission had made a further and final order. If you have any other views on this, I shall be glad to have them. You will recall that it was Mr. Stoddard's thought that we might be able to go ahead with a rehearing in the case if the Commission acted on its Petition for Rehear­ing before it was necessary to try the court action. With this in mind I think you should notify Mr. Allen that w® have found it necessary to go ahead with the court action beoause of inaction on the part of the Commission Ithl un­certainty as to when the case could be set down for re­hearing if at all. I think you should let him know that if the Commission would grant the Petition for Rehearing and set the case for hearing promptly, the actual trial of the court action could be held in abeyance for a rea­rseoancahbelde. time to determine what decision the Commission Los Angeles, March 24, 1952 44770857--1111--21204 Mr. Calvin M. Cory: (oe - Mr. Wm. Reinhardt) Wivi. N. MAR 2 4 1952 MAR 24 L» C . !* S. Bennett