Chickasha Cotton Oil Co. v. Corporation Commission
562 P.2d 507
Okla.
1977
Check Treatment

*1 Okl., 348 P.2d Bodley, v. Barnett vene. Therefore, interve- COMPANY, therein. cited cases CHICKASHA COTTON OIL merit. al., Petitioners, is without corporation, contention et

nor’s that tri next contends Intervenor v. his interven to allow required was court al The CORPORATION COMMISSION trial court argue not does He tion. of Oklahoma and the Public the State ais Intervention its discretion. abused Oklahoma, corpo Service petitioner when claims right matter ration, Respondents, within exclu specific property in interest the inter the court and jurisdiction sive v. oth way; in no other protected can be est LINCOLN PROPERTY et CO. within the discretion erwise intervention al., Intervenors. Bodley, supra; v. Barnett courts. of trial No. 48956. Corporation, 194 Margay v. Oil Franklin Note, 519, 153 Interven P.2d 486. See Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Oklahoma, 17 Okla.L.Rev. in tion [1964]. discharge wrong was Here, if intervenor’s March 1977. suit for separate ful, may maintain he Nat. Bank & Trust Co. First damages. 837; Bassett, P.2d 183 Okl. v.

Tulsa P. Blakeney, v. 65 Okl.

Hamilton Attorney and Client 7 C.J.S. See

141. Moreover, intervenor’s interest 169.

§ action, personal realty

in a chose through plaintiffs he claimed

ty; Furthermore,

indirectly against defendant. with relationship plaintiffs

intervenor’s injury contro personal

extraneous relation of their and determination

versy, with burdened the suit have

ship would Thus, intervention was issues.

irrelevant of trial court. Frank discretion

within Corporation, supra. Margay Oil

lin not abuse its discre court did trial

conclude sustaining the motion to dismiss. affirmed; court order of of trial

Order disbursement of prohibiting

Supreme Court dismissed. vacated and cause

settlement J., DAVISON,

LAVENDER, V. C. SIMMS, JJ., concur.

IRWIN

DOOLIN, J., concurs result. J.,

HODGES, WILLIAMS and C. JJ.,

BARNES, dissent.

508 Oklahoma,

nental Tel. Co. of and Pine Tel. Co., amici curiae. Thompson, Nance,

Lee B. Thompson, Selph, Harbour & City, Oklahoma Hubert Preston, Angelo, Tex., M. San for General Tel. Southwest, Co. amicus curiae. Allen, Robert D. Oklahoma City, for Co., Bell Tel. Southwestern amicus curiae. BARNES, Justice. brought

This class action on behalf of persons Petitioners and all classes of receiv- ing electrical service from The Public Ser- (PSC) vice of Oklahoma under Noble, Terry Shipley, petitioners. for special tariffs which were prior in effect 15, 1975, April asking that prohibit- PSC be Counsel, Swidensky, A. Gen. Oklaho- Jack ed charging from and that the Corporation ma Oklahoma prohibited Commission be from Lawrence, Tulsa, enforcing L. Robert for City, re- promulgated new rates in Corporation spondents. Commission No. Order Crowe, Harry Jr., Thieman, M. Crowe & 15, 1975, April Norman, Rizley, Prichard, Ford, E. Charles Cause No. 25346. Reed, Gubser, Larry & E. H. Norman B. here are confronted question with the Ellison, Tulsa, Kenneth Ferguson, C. for notice, of what any, if must be given to

intervenors. customers of a public utility before its rates Huffman, Arrington, Robert A. John L. changed by can be the Corporation Commis- Jr., Kirby, Huffman, Arrington, Thomas J. sion. The Constitution, Oklahoma Kihle, Tulsa, & for Oklahoma Scheurich gives rate-making authority Corpora- Co., Natural Gas amicus curiae. provides for notice Anderson, City, L. William Oklahoma for (Article 9, 18), utilities but § it does not Co., Louisiana Arkansas Gas Southern Un- provide patron for to a utility. Co., Arkansas, Corp., ion Gas Oklahoma Gas recognized explained This was Co., Co., Gas Velma Pact Gas Avant Gas case of American Indian Oil & Gas Co. v. Co., Co., Co., C.C.I. Gas and Yale Gas amici Co., Geo. F. Collins & 9 P.2d 438 curiae. (1932), where this Court stated: * “* * Stratton, Rice, Hugh H. Duane D. Rai- There is no merit in that Wallace, Ross ney, Cooper, & Oklahoma contention. Consumers are not necessary Co., for City, Oklahoma Gas Elec. ami- parties corporation before the commission curiae. cus hearing they in a rate are not neces- sary parties in federal court in an Ogden, Ogden, Ogden Board, Frank M. & enjoin the corporation action commis- Guymon, for Public Southwestern Service enforcing sion from rate fixed it. Co., amicus curiae. Neither Constitution the State of Jr., Hawkins, Hawkins, Brydon Robert L. nor legislative Oklahoma enactments Mo., Swearengen, City, & Jefferson for The require notice be given a consumer. Co., Empire District Elec. amicus curiae. corporation represents commission Galt, Jay Watts, Nichols, Looney, M. the consumer and its orders fixing rates & Hayes, City, Johnson Oklahoma for Okla- are for benefit of the consumer. In Cooperatives, Ass’n of Elec. homa Inc. Telephone Co., v. Illinois Bell Smith Anderson, L. City, William Oklahoma U.S. S.Ct. 70 L.Ed. * * Co., Allied Tel. Chickasaw Tel. Conti- that court held: the commis- fixing without rates has especially not been ex- public represents sion subscribers, they properly plained. are ” (Emphasis add- the decree.’ bound patent “It is that we could not deter- ed) alleged amount of the ‘overpay- mine the order ments’ and refunds without either Corpora- question do not Petitioners legislating new rate schedules to replace authority to issue such tion Commission’s *3 ones, allegedly legislatively void or the given them order, allege that the notice but in effect anew the rate schedules placing judicial them due inadequate to afford was to 1957.” by prior the Commission adopted process contend that the due They process. to the Fourteenth Amendment of the clause In Southern Oil Corporation v. Yale Nat requires that no- Constitution States United 121, ural Gas Okl. (1923), 214 P. them, that hearing be afforded tice and the contention was made that plaintiff the the Corpora- such notice the absence of should have- received notice of Corpora the is void. order tion Commission’s tion Commission’s hearing which resulted in held that repeatedly has This Court its contractual rate purchase for the of nat fix rates in Oklahoma is a power to gas being abrogated. the ural There we held: Wiley v. Oklahoma function. In legislative “The contention of plaintiff that it was (Okl. Company, 429 P.2d 957 Gas Natural entitled to notice of the proceedings in that certain rate in 1967), it was asserted Corporation which the Commission estab- void because the Commission were creases the rate gas lished for to be charged by by contributions and favors influenced was 1,000 at 15 per defendant cents cubic compa lobbyist gas of the from received feet, thereby terminating its contractual We said: ny. rights, is likewise without merit. This universally recognized that “It is upon was application rate fixed of the utili- public rate schedules for fixing of defendant, and no notice to its consumers process, and that a legislative ties patrons required. 18, Section art. regulatory body acts in public service Constitution, provides of the for notice rate capacity approving legislative days at least 10 to given by be schedules.” company to the or companies commission rate, by any to be affected charge, classi- And further: fication, order, rule, regulation, or re- may that this Court va- argued “It is quirement. clearly This means that no- rate orders estab- cate Commission’s given tice shall be public service 1963 and order refunds lished in 1957 and corporation who is to be affected said fixing rates for Oklahoma Natu- without rate, and does not mean that notice must Company. In Consumers’ Co. ral Gas Gas given patrons. be to its Rate making Corporation 95 Okl. being legislative power, par- notice this Court held that a natural 219 P. by an Corpora- ties affected order of the to earn a utility entitled reasonable gas Commission, fixing gas upon rates its investment and a reasonable return on application public of the service depreciation amortiza- cor- amount for given, need not be poration, specif- would unless tion. To hold otherwise authorize property ically required by City without statute. taking private Bartlesville Corporation compensation, contrary to constitu- v just . possible How it is 199 P. 396.” provisions. tional down the 1957 and this court to strike and thus re-establish We hold that

1963 rate orders Com existing prior acting legislative to 1957 capacity rate structures mission taking into consideration the fi- when it restructured the with without rates requirements required of the we are here concerned and was not nancial year period constantly judicial due during give a ten notice and hear Petitioners, economy changing ing state and national unless specifically required by present statute. There is Hereby no “Notice Is Given that the above statutory provision requiring notice. Applicant named has Application filed an that alleging its earnings from electric finally Petitioners contend that utility service in are Oklahoma less than was bound Corporation Commission its reasonable asking that the Commis- 12(e) Rules practice rules of own [OCCRP adjust the grant sion rates and such other this 8(d)(7)]. find contention of relief as to enable the Applicant to earn a without merit because Petitioners to be fair and rate of return its on published in case substantially this plant, property, and other assets devoted complied with the Commis public utility service in Oklahoma. publica suggested form of notice sion’s * * * * * # tion, point stating even to the “after Commission, regardless hearing the of the “It Is Further Ordered that Applicant requested Application, relief shall shall cause the above notice to publish- *4 grant such and such issue Orders relief as it ed a week once for two consecutive weeks fair, necessary, to proper, be reason newspaper general deems of in circulation premises, in equitable and the county able whether of the seat all counties in which specifically prayed Appli for in the Applicant or not the has customers that will be clearly by advised all Application cation.” This consumers affected the and no- that adjust the mail might by given that rates in tice be to the Chief Execu- any by manner allowed law. Petitioners tive Officer of each municipality do in which the restructuring Applicant furnishes not contend that of classes is electric retail ser- vice, notice, and that such adjustment of rates. both by not an mail publication, and shall be Ap- made at assumed; Application for Jurisdiction plicant’s expense, submitting proof of of Prohibition denied. Writ publication and affidavits of mailing for the record herein. LAVENDER, J., DAVISON, V. C. and Further “It Is Ordered that after hear- WILLIAMS, JJ„ BERRY, IRWIN and con- ing the regardless of re- the cur. requested lief in the Application, shall HODGES, J.,C. and SIMMS DOO- grant issue such Orders such relief as JJ., LIN, dissent. proper, it deems to be fair, necessary, HODGES, Justice, dissenting: Chief equitable reasonable and premises, whether or not specifically prayed for in sole in this case is whether The issue the Application.” the given “Notice” and sufficient the that apprise petitioners to a restructur- The notice was published and PSC mailed ing among rates the various classes of of flyers advising to its customers them a rate in be tariffs existence was to considered at increase was being sought. It also adver- hearing the Corporation the rate before newspapers tised in certain that “each cus- of following Commission. A recitation pay proportionate tomer will a share of the necessary proper facts for a under- Nothing appeared increase.” in any of the standing of this issue. notices, mailings, or newspaper advertise- alluding ments restructuring of PSC’s 3, 1974, The On December Public Service rates. No further notices given. were (PSC) appli- of Oklahoma filed an seeking additional cation revenue distri- Petitioners do not assert that PSC of a 12.5% rate increase equally bution not increase, entitled to a rate nor that among application restructuring its customers. The did of might rates not have been proposal not mention a appropriate to restructure rates. proper had given. notice been 9, 1974, prepared by They allege they On December a notice were denied proc- due rejection insufficient, after ess because inadequate, PSC, prepared by of notice misleading was issued given notice by the Corpora- provided pertinent part: which in tion Commission. Instead determining requirements as notice new the rates which adjustment did not exist be- done, fore; therefore, Com- would I would that all recognize stated restructuring rates ordered procedural mission modifications enunciated herein special classes of abrogated various which should not be as invalidating construed to those affected without notice tariffs procedures any notice other circumstance change in rate structure. us, other than in the case before and that application imposition of the proper argues that Corporation Commission procedures notice standards should be grant it would whatever stating clause only except as prospective petitioners necessary rendered ade- relief herein.2 The notice not agree. did I do quate. meaningfully apprise peti-

adequately I am authorized state that Justice matter of subject the action. tioners and Justice SIMMS DOOLIN concur in the hearing that a them it notified Instead expressed. herein views they a matter be held on would i.e., proportionate in- objection, no had ORDER all equally by be shared in rates to crease customers. IT IS that the opinion ORDERED of this Court heretofore on October jurisdictional requirement as Notice in 47 appearing O.B.J. shall requisite proc- of due a fundamental as well hereby be and the same is withdrawn. The requires adequate notice Due ess. opinion adopted of this Court this date is appear at a opportunity realistic *5 in lieu thereof and as a time substi- meaningful hearing in opinion. earlier tute said right The heard meaningful manner. is value unless little is of BY DONE ORDER OF THE SUPREME is violated process and due

given, IN day COURT CONFERENCE this 7th of exercising judicial power upon act of mere March, 1977. reasonably apprise calculated to process parties pendency interested

action.1 amply failure of due dem- Corpo- the fact in this case

onstrated both and PSC knew and

ration Commission rates” “restructuring was to realized ex STATE of Oklahoma rel. OKLAHOMA integral part of the important and be an ASSOCIATION, Complainant, BAR hearing. v. Therefore, my opinion, FORE, Respondent. William D. jurisdiction have to en- did not restructuring the rates and an order No. S.C.B.D. No. 2547. ter the Corpora- should be remanded cause Court of Supreme Oklahoma. proceedings af- for further tion Commission 8, 1977. March notice. proper issuance ter However, duty guard has a this Court any attempt upset settled and

against imposition rate structures

established 378, 779, Connecticut, 371, 1363, v. 401 U.S. 91 U.S. Boddie 34 S.Ct. 58 L.Ed. 1369 1. 780, (1971); Armstrong v. Socony Co., 113 (1914); 28 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. Manzo, v. Mobil Bomford Oil 440 545, 1187, 85 S.Ct. 14 L.Ed.2d Hobbs, 380 U.S. 713, (Okl.1968); 719 Simms v. 411 P.2d York, (1965); New U.S. v. 371 62 208, Schroeder 503, (Okl.1966). P.2d 510 255, 9 L.Ed.2d 89 A.L. 83 S.Ct. (1962); Dan Riverside & River Cot 1398 R.2d Socony Mobil Oil 2. See v. Bomford Menefee, 189, 35 v. 237 U.S. S.Ct. Mills ton (Okl.1968). P.2d Ordean, (1915); L.Ed. 910 Grannis