Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000283 177

Image

File
Download upr000283-177.tif (image/tiff; 26.85 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000283-177
    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

    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-