Information
Digital ID
upr000065-461
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.ft happened in the future. It is noted on page 46 ef the Petition, *Tfae Hope cease does not change the constitutions or statutes of the Individual states and the State Commissions are free to follow the mandates of their omi State constitutions and statutes** fo this we agree but this Commission would fee in a rathe?' «*b>— barmesing position if it went against the edict of the United States Supreme Court as ©stressed in the Hope case and then found that the Water Company or say other company appealed through the courts to he United States Supreme Court for a decision. U*© Coamieoion in its opinion and Order of August 84, 1961 due consideration of all relevant facts in the record of the las Vegas land and water Company In granting the applicant an increase in water rat©©. The petition of tine La® Vega® Land and later Company for reconsideration of the Opinion and Order under III Docket Ho. 137, or a rehearing in I l s Docket Ho. 137 should be denied. Mi appropriate order will be entered.