Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000063 65

Image

File
Download upr000063-065.tif (image/tiff; 26.42 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000063-065
    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

    Decisions which do not adhere to this fundamental rule of fairness and Justice will bo set aside by the courts. The memorandum appended hereto discusses the rules of law in some detail. Unless the errors in the Commission's decision are corrected by the Commission upon reconsideration, your peti­tioner has no other alternative than to pursue this case through the courts. The decision of the Commission manifestly requires revision. It is only fair and proper that the Commission have an opportunity to do this prior to resort to court action by petitioner* It Is only fair to petitioner that this be done with the utmost dispatch; The evidence ih this case shows that the Water Company did not earfl a fair return in 1949 and that it suffered a substantial deficit ih 1950. It will un­doubtedly suffer a deficit for the full year 1951, To obtain relief it filed rates to become effective February 26, 1951 and asked for an early hearing when they were suspended. The Commission was unable to conclude hearings until June 7, 1951. Through cooperation of petitioner, the Commission was given two successive extensions of thirty (30) days each within which to decide the case. It is manifest that even a satis­factory decision would have left the Water Company in an un­satisfactory earning position for the calendar year 1951. We urge the Commission to take immediate action on this petition and to correct its decision by considering the evidence al­ready introduced.