Henry v. Corporation Commission

HENRY, Attorney General Robert Oklahoma, Appellant,

v.

CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA, Arkansas

STATE OF Corporation, Appellees.

Oklahoma Gas

ARKANSAS OKLAHOMA GAS

CORPORATION,

Appellant,

v.

The STATE of Oklahoma and

The Oklahoma

Commission, Appellees.

The EASTERN OKLAHOMA LEGISLA- DELEGATION,

TIVE Senators Gene Larry Dickerson,

Stipe Representa- Mentzer, Glenn,

tives Don Ron Chester Hamilton,

(Dusty) Ap- Rhodes and Jim

pellants,

CORPORATION COMMISSION OF the OKLAHOMA, and Arkansas

STATE OF Corporation, Appellees.

Oklahoma Gas

Nos.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Oct.

Rehearings Denied March

LAVENDER, Justice. 1) presented appeal The issues on are did customers have sufficient notice of AOG’s intent to increase the Commission’s AOG’s 2) gas cost of and line loss and is the base increasing the amount Commission’s order of refund owed customers a AOG’s valid hold that the no- order. We adequately tice was insufficient to inform customers that an increase in line AOG’s gas loss or base cost of was to be con- sidered. We further find that Commis- increasing sion’s order the amount of re- in that fund owed AOG’s customers valid right challenge AOG waived its the or- appeal having der on failed to contest the during staff’s motion the Commission’s proceedings.

I. Facts 26, 1985, December Arkansas Okla- On (AOG), gas Corporation utility homa Gas serving certain communities and rural ar- Sequoyah, eas in LeFlore and Haskell coun- Oklahoma, application ties in filed an with the Oklahoma Commission general seeking a rate increase. The Cor- poration designated appli- this Commission Utility cation as Public Docket Cause No. 24, 1986, April 79. On the Eastern Okla- (EOLD), Legislative Delegation homa AOG, representatives of the customers of Gen., Henry, Atty. pro H. se and Robert protest application for an filed a Butkin, Gen., Atty. Robert A. Asst. Okla- utility May of the increase rates. Atty. City, appellant homa for Gen. of year Attorney same General Okla- Oklahoma. homa also filed an as to the intervention application representa- for rate increase as Hernandez, Corp. José J. Oklahoma public. of the tive Com’n, City, appellee Oklahoma for Okla- Corp. homa Com’n. 24, 1986, April the same date that On appearance gener- EOLD entered its Cody L. Anderson and B. William Wad- proceeding al rate increase initiated dell, Waddell, P.C., Anderson & Oklahoma AOG, appli- the Commission staff filed an City, appellee/appellant for Arkansas Okla- designated as Public Util- cation which was Corp. homa Gas applica- In the ity Cause No. 158. Docket Hamilton, Poteau, Representative Jim No. the Commission tion in Cause Legisla- appellant Eastern Oklahoma in the of monitor- alleged that course staff compliance Commission Delegation. tive with AOG’s per fuel ad- AOG its costs from Regulations governing rebase $1.41 Rules per that MCF to MCF and to increase the discovered justment $2.05 clauses1 it had line loss factor its rate from seven through the base recovering line loss2 was AOG percent percent ef- ap- one-half eleven gas adjustment clause.3 The purchased May billings. fective in recovery not plication alleged that this was permissible through mechanism.4 Be- January On the Commission per- and one-half AOG had seven cause staff filed to increase the loss into its base rates cent line factored No. amount of refund determined in Cause previous order es- under the however, application, filed This was rates, recovery tablishing A motion copy under Cause No. 79. of this purchased gas through line loss the actual parties delivered hav- was therefore to all clause resulted an ov- adjustment had ing rate appearances general entered in the application fuel The errecovery costs. proceeding. given As a result EOLD was sought order from the Commission di- application the actual notice of this and of Ad- recting a refund AOG’s customers. subsequent setting hearing for order date application requested ditionally, the that the motion. No mention gas costs be rebased. AOG’s 15,1987 However, January had on EOLD in line that an increase loss was was made already a motion in No. 79 filed Cause appropriate or other be considered that May challenging proceedings the as to the relief be considered.5 would grounds hearing on the of lack of hearing applica- staff

A was set on the this public. notice the EOLD amended in Cause No. 158 and notice was tion par- February motion on 1987 to more counsel for AOG and to the At- mailed to notice, ticularly challenge the lack of given torney other notice was General. No requested part Or- a cancelation of that hearing in this matter. The hear- to the in- No. which AOG to der allowed 6,1986. The May held on Commis- Attorney was The crease its rates. General Order di- sion entered No. which support position filed a of the motion to refund to its customers an February rected AOG The Attor- EOLD on $400,000, challenged in excess the exact the ney amount the order on General time, at a later intent amount to be determined of notice of the basis lack factor, percent increasing plus interest at the rate of six consider AOG’s line loss raising evidentiary billing questions of during the course of over the next as well as take authority to support also and Commission twelve months. The order allowed argues though appli- that the 17 O.S.1981 5.The Commission §§ See 250-63. re-basing specifically say cation did not through gas gas is lost the Line loss which considered, applica- the the line would be loss companies lines in loss is its transmission. This would con- tion did that the Commission state by determining passed to the the on customer appropriate. as it sider such other relief However, deemed percentage of in transmission and al- lost attorney Commission as the for the lowing passed on for that cost to be to the out, regrettably language left pointed was this case, appears In this it that AOG’s consumer. We issued Commission. out of the notice primarily leaks loss was due to in AOG’s line given argues point this assume the Commission system. distribution holding v. Cor- of Chickasha Cotton Oil Co. O.S.1981, 250(5) adjustment § defines fuel Comm., (Okla.1977), poration 562 P.2d 507 as: clause was not which the notice issued found any adjustment means ‘Fuel clause’ mecha- language “boilerplate” misleading because utility public or nism which allows a electric notice. in the mentioned above was included However, generating cooperative automatically adjust support offers for this case no charges the base above or below amount present failed to wherein Commission case rates, upon changes in its based included language "other include in the notice that generation electricity, pur- of fuel for costs moreover, considered,” might relief be gas.... power purchased or chased itself where notice was defective. O.S.1981, 251(C)(4). § 4. See 17 portion to its rates of Art. IX 18 relied on EOLD increasing AOG’s the action of § has procedure. application.7 no consumers under No. 310988 the Order argues Corpora also that the EOLD application granted the staff 8-27(b) tion Commission Rule of Practice refund, ordering AOG to to increase the requires application that notice of the $126,615 plus interest refund an additional consuming Cause No. 158 be de- customers. The Commission to AOG’s 8-27(b) provides: public. Rule Attorney and the General’s nied EOLD's hearing Notice of of an for provi- requests the rate increase to delete schedule, rate, charge, approval of sions of Order No. 297572. classification, regulation rule or General, Attorney The EOLD and AOG directly indirectly will alter separate appeals each filed from Com- have performed, made for services shall be Attorney mission Order No. 310988. (2) published once each week two challenges adequacy of the General (15) consecutive weeks at least fifteen as to Cause No. 158. notice received days prior newspaper to a in a challenges validity EOLD of Order published circulation in each give 297572 of the failure to notice because county utility in are located cus- which public represents. the which EOLD thereby, tomers affected unless the Com- challenges in refund AOG the increase the mission directs otherwise. make to its customers. All three it must argue AOG and the Commission appeals disposi- consolidated for have been 8-27(b) apply Rule does not in this situation challenge tion. address first the We because Order No. 297572 resulted a brought by validity EOLD as to the decrease in find no revenue AOG. We ultimately, Order No. 297572 and the cor- argument ap- merit in this since the rule rectness of Order No. 310988. plies any there is to cases where alteration charges.

made the Here the order clear- ly resulted in an alteration in made II. to the consumers of AOG’s services. argues provisions EOLD that the Moreover, testimony of the Commis- allowing in of Order No. 297572 a rate February sion's witness at the crease, i.e. the of increased line allowance hearing was to the effect that the increase costs, gas loss factor and base are invalid in line loss factor and the increase in cost give because the Commission failed to no resulted in a rate be recovered by tice to the consumers affected the in increase to AOG.8 crease. This Court has held that “rate being legislative power “ju making” ... Alternatively, AOG and Com process dicial due notice and ... 8-27(b) contend that Rule has been mission by specifically required unless statute because, failing explicitly by satisfied required. are not While EOLD does ...”6 publication given, order that of notice be contention, statutory not cite a basis for its directing publica had the effect of this required un it does claim that notice was given. disagree. The tion need not be We Art. IX der the Oklahoma Constitution Commission’s failure to act is no substitu However, provi these constitutional express perform for an mandate to tion § publication only notice provide sions particular duty.

a situation where the Commission is en considering challenge on

gaged actions not directed at notice, adequacy utility. appeal Here the in as to the our named action by utility of review is determined Art. volved a named and therefore that standard Co., 6. Chickasha Cotton Oil 562 P.2d at 509 7.Id. (quoting Corp. Oil Southern Yale Natural Gas (1923). P. at 94. 89 Okla. 8.Record rules, regulations, stan sion.10 These of Oklahoma IX Constitution § by the adopted dards Commission have that: states When an admin force and effect of law.11 appeal- review of Supreme Court’s “The agency such as the Commission istrative Corporation Commis- orders of the able govern proceeding rules to promulgates in all judicial only, and shall be sion scrupulously rules must be observed. these involving asserted violation appeals procedural rules it creates Once parties under the Consti- any right of the right to violate these denies itself the or the Consti- of the United States tution taken in violation of these and an action Oklahoma, the tution of the State by rules be stricken down will independent its own shall exercise Court This doctrine was announced the courts.12 the law and the as to both judgment ex rel. Accar in the case United States orders appeals other facts. In all from Shaughnessy.13 di v. the re- Corporation of view shall not by Supreme Court pro significance It is of no that the to determine than extend further by the Com rule here established cedural regularly has the Commission whether re generous than that mission is more authority, and whether pursued its quired by constitution or statute.14 the Com- conclusions findings and pro failure to follow its own law and sustained mission are prej rule vitiate such actions where cedural review, Upon evidence. substantial udice results.15 ei- judgment, enter Supreme Court shall reversing affirming the order ther position that its si- The Commission’s appealed from....” the Commission requirement that notice be lence as to the added). (emphasis proper in this case constitutes a published re- of the Commission’s exercise discretion case, present it is facts of the Under the 8-27(b) simply is unten- under rule tained “regu- not has clear that to position seems able. The Commission’s authority” that “the larly pursued its or 8-27(b) is a matter of notice under be that of the Commission findings and conclusions right grace rather than a administrative and substantial are sustained the law having force and by a established notify con- failure to evidence.”9 The rec- position cannot be of law. This effect sumering public as to the Commission’s principle that the fundamental onciled with line loss and base intent to increase AOG’s of laws and not of government is a “ours comply substantially not gas costs does 16 men.” own rule. with the Commission’s wishes to make If the Commission Corporation Com The Oklahoma of a rule exception an constitutionally empowered with is mission unambig mandatory and speaks governing pro authority to make rules reasonably explain language it must the Commis- uous practice before cedure 13. Const, 502-03, 499, 260, 265-67, IX, 98 74 S.Ct. U.S. 20. 347 § Okla. art. 9. (1954). L.Ed. 681 Comm., 10. 109, Halpin P.2d v. 575 (Okla.1978). 111 812; Hall, 14. 809, Heffner, F.2d 660 420 F.2d 11. Barnes v. 819, 705, Pipeline Lenfest, Transok 116, 119; P.2d 549 Hammond v. 398 F.2d 1976). Green, (Okla. Cir.1968); 820 States v. (2nd 344 United 715 474, (E.D.Pa.1972). F.Supp. 479 12. United 809, Heffner, 420 F.2d States v. 811 116, Schweiker, (4th Cir.1969); Hall v. 660 F.2d Green, Hall, 119; F.Supp. at at 344 660 F.2d Cir.1981); Co. v. Fed (5th Atlantic 119 Richfield Comm., 1, (S.D.Tex. F.Supp. 12 eral Trade 1975); Douglas County Administration Welfare Parks, Hammond, 11- Neb. 284 N.W.2d 398 F.2d at Halpin, (1979). Accord at 111. 575 P.2d exception.17 making grounds. unnecessary the reasons for several We find it however, respond argu- to to the various purpose of the Accardi doctrine is “to presented apparent ments as it is from the prevent the which inherent- arbitrariness opportunity record that AOG was agency’s ly characteristic of an violation of present arguments to its as to the merits of Any procedures.”18 its own deviation procedural irregularities the refund or dur- explained procedural from a rule must be proceedings the Commission’s held on on the record to insure that the deviation is February but failed to do so.20 arbitrarily capriciously. not made did AOG cross examine the Commission’s witness as to what time frame the Commis- Here the Commission’s failure to using charges given sion was for interest it give publication notice to AOG’s customers was the Commission who failed to deter- of its intent to increase line AOG’s loss and original mine in the order the correct gas clearly base costs cause no. 158 amount of refund owed AOG’s custom- 8-27(b). violated OCCRP As a result of however, ers.21 At no time did AOG chal- violation, the customers were denied lenge legal theory which formed the opportunity present arguments rele original basis for the refund and additional changes vant to these which would affect refund, or the authority made AOG for the services Indeed, issue such a refund. as to the provided. prejudiced This the interests of award, original right AOG its waived present these customers. The Commission notice, agreed that the explanation ed no creditable as to fail its Commission could enter such order as it comply ure to with its own re appropriate deemed based on the Commis- quirement. Accordingly we find the Com investigation sion’s staff and this at a time refusing grant mission erred EOLD when the final amount of refund owed was yet undetermined.22 requested relief in No. Order and therefore Order No. 297572 is struck part We thus reverse that of Order No. granted any down insofar as it increase to grant 310988that request failed to EOLD’s AOG’s base costs or line loss factor. provision to delete the rate increase of Or- point effectively Our decision on this moots however, der No. 297572. We affirm portion appeal by allowing the issue raised in the of the Attor Order for the in- crease refund owed ney AOG’s customers. General.19 ORDER OF THE CORPORATION COM- MISSION IS REVERSED IN PART AND III. AFFIRMED IN PART. separate appeal argues AOG its C.J., HARGRAVE, OPALA, V.C.J., that Order No. 310988 erroneous insofar HODGES, SIMMS, DOOLIN, ALMA as it increases the amount of refund it SUMMERS, JJ., WILSON and concur. prior must make for overcharges. AOG challenges KAUGER, J., validity the specially. this order on concurs Tour, Gray appraise Attorney Lines Co. v. Interstate Commerce cient to even the General. Com., (9th Cir.1987). F.2d Accordingly, distinguish holding we from In Regulation Adjustment re Automatic Rate Heffner, 420 F.2d at 812. Clauses, (Okla.1980) 608 P.2d 544 wherein the adequate court found that notice was where the Attorney 19. We are not unmindful that the Gen- “Attorney present General was at the proceeding eral had notice of the in which the notice, representing persons refund to AOG’scustomers was to be with those whom considered notice, and that in that mention was made that he now claims had no notice.” rebasing of AOG’s costs would be con- However, sidered. because we herein hold that 20. Record at 97-100. according the notice itself was defective Commission's own rules and because in event no mention was made of the fact that 21. Record at 98.

AOG’s line loss factor would be increased we 22. Record at 216. given find that such notice as was was insuffi- OPALA, Justice, OPALA,

KAUGER, Justice, concurring. Vice Chief with whom V.C.J., specially: concurring joins Corporation the court holds that agree Corporation the I (agency) to Commission’s failure follow its it when failed not follow rules did require procedural norms—which that no- Although publication. publi- give by notice by publication any pro- tice be may available for the world cation be public posed utility’s in a alteration rate see, suppose that presumptuous it is judicially sanctioned in be —cannot published to all that is anyone could read explana- of some absence reasonable something may reported if detect be Applying the doctrine to tion. Accardi1 property interest.1 Reason affects his/her unexplained departure good practice require that we business from its the court re- 1) appellee, Arkansas assume: allowing order a rate verses the (AOG), main- Gas Oklahoma increase. parties very a list of the who tains current impacted by a rate increase— will be most it

its customers—and that sends them bills I basis; 2) regular on a that notice could mailings regular with without be enclosed ORDERLY PROCEDURE IS A SINE any undue burden on AOG. QUA NON OF FUNDAMENTAL Oil 695 P.2d Cate Archon FAIRNESS (Okla.1985), acknowledged we wholeheartedly I welcome the birth necessity efficiency nor can that neither today’s my It own teaching. reinforces that, abrogate within limits to the notion that fundamental commitment reasonably practicability, notice must be by any adjudi- fairness cannot be afforded parties. reach the calculated to interested process, judicial, cative administrative by pro- If the names those affected except orderly pro- within framework available, ceeding disap- are reasons may lay cedure. No area of law claim to pear resorting likely less than to means exemption from the basic strictures apprise possible mails them of ac- practice2 even structured the law circumstances, any- tion.2 Under these —not making. Proposed governing utility rate thing by less mail is a violation than notice utility’s charges in a are public alterations here, process when, party of due rule-gov- regulated the Commission’s regu- charged duty of notification with process.3 freedom to de- erned Unbounded larly sends bills its customers—the same system from this ordered will part at parties impacted the rate will which are chaos, bring caprice and change. inevitably about Co., 1352, 8-27(B) pro- 3.Corporation 1. Cate v. Archon Oil Commission Rule 695 P.2d 1356 (Okla.1985). vides: 2. Greene v. 2. 1. Hanover Bank Trust A.L.R.2d Fund v. 347 70 S.Ct. Okl., Schroeder 83 ^[1986] (1949); 1874, 1880, Pryse United S.Ct. U.S. 595 P.2d (Opala, Cate Archon v. Monument 260, States Washburn, 1398, 652, 279, 282, v. Lindsey, City 72 74 S.Ct. & 435, J., dissenting.). 659-60, 1403 ex rel. Accardi v. of L.Ed.2d New Co. v. 456 U.S. (1962); Okl., 9 L.Ed.2d 499, Co., Oil [1979]; Special 94 L.Ed. York, 722 P.2d 249, 339 98 L.Ed. 681 [1954]. District Mullane v. Central 444, 371 see note U.S. 258-59 255, 455, U.S. Shaughnessy, 865, 306, Court, 1204, 208, 213, 102 1, Indemn. 259, 318-20, 875-76 (1982); supra. S.Ct. Etc., 89 wise.” general (15) for two or “Notice cation, performed, proval of thereby, indirectly days rule or [Emphasis mine.] circulation (2) of unless are located prior any hearing shall be consecutive alter schedule, rate, regulation the Commission directs to once each week published published in each of an utility customers affected weeks which will application in a made for service charge, at newspaper least fifteen directly classifi- for county other- ap- of hoc decisions.4 ad procedure today. is that agency “It doctrine” we embrace The Accardi violated action spells pro- invalidated much of the difference between regulations having cedural by caprice. force by law and rule or Stead- whim law, Attorney which the prom- General had procedural fast adherence to strict safe- ulgated pursuant congressionally to his guards is our main assurance there Accardi’s authority.8 conferred actual This equal justice be the law.”5 will under teaching is more narrow than that made court should never claim nor for itself pronouncement our in this case. It extends any adjudicative institution for only directly by rules authorized legis- government agency —court —unre- latively enacted norms.9 I If were writ- applicable strained freedom from today for the I majority, explicit- would rule-imposed procedural regime.6 Accardi, ly extend as the court seems procedural all implicitly, have done II norms govern agency’s adjudica- ACCARDI DOCTRINE SHOULD THE BE spe- process, tive they implement whether EXTENDED ALL TO PROCEDURAL or, statutory policy as in the case cific RULES GOVERNING AGENCY PRO- us, only grant before power a CEEDINGS regulate procedure.10 adopted by once a rules, Procedural agency Whenever an comply fails to with agency, court or applied should be mechan- procedural one of applica- rules that is ically to avoid the uncertainties that arise given hand, ble in a at situation exceptions Departure when are created.7 give must explanation, a reasoned on the any rule-imposed procedural regime record, from why it refuses follow the rule’s binding force. No countenance should accompanied by expla- must be a reasoned ever be departure This, essence, “Accardi to an ad hoc nation. is the from Court, Etc., Pryse suspension v. deporta- 4. Monument Co. District alien’s supra note 2 at 438. tion. 8. gration Anderson, part when chanically to avoid the uncertainties that arise 2407-2409, 222-223, land worthy claim rule-imposed impediment. dispensed only 1238, ^[1973] become a of a My rehearing quest choosing cases for certiorari review should not McGrath, ceive review note 2 at 1212. In See Joint Special procedure dissent Accardi, and rehearing Scavenger rule-governed process consideration before n. 1 [1990] United States v. for itself exceptions (procedural violated a of the court’s by Anti-Fascist dissenting 93 S.Ct. 71 S.Ct. Indemn. Bryant & (Douglas, game points certiorari even 101 supra to be followed in dismissal Co., to those unrestrained L.Ed.2d had been of chance in which favor is are out that certiorari is 624, (Opala, regulation 487 U.S. note rules Washburn Fund in J., created); Indrelunas, largesse." 652, Refugee part). who are 1, concurring), 341 U.S. this court must be 285 V.C.J., Okl., filed 95 L.Ed. 817 and that on review 312, though petitioner’s freedom which Washburn, Court of [1988]; Board of Immi- 36 L.Ed.2d 202 786 P.2d Torres v. Oak too late to re- 108 S.Ct. Committee concurring processing singled court 411 U.S. applied "should not process prescribed from regulated Bane v. Appeals. granted [1951]. out as 2405, supra 1230, me an in v. 9. In United States category e.g., 74 363, fied as § latively generated F.E. power, (b) [1957], tive Law Treatise court as a cy, pursuant tween rules. The last two always given the invariably spawn Well-recognized distinctions are often [1965]. Procedural made be- "A unanimous islatively authorized or not. teaching. agency’s binding sweep [4th 5.03 at legislative power by The view we S.Ct. at legislative legislative body” Accardi, (c) Cir.1969], 380, Cooper, legislative, interpretative than that which follows but see reasonable.” legislative 299. Procedural rules have been 77 issued Heffner statute if it 502-503; support supra note to a S.Ct. rule is the State Administrative Law 264 American adopt force § 5.03 299 procedural pursuant grant v. court reversal norms, applied Accardi to all of the 1152, rules, rules. categories of national Service v. given binding Heffner, K.C. today of law whose at an administrative gave 8, product (a) 1161, is “as when rested on Farm Lines v. Black to Davis, are 347 U.S. at legislative does not meet with See within the proper procedure, Accardi a 420 F.2d [1958]; generally agency’s directly of rules are not Dulles, 1 binding upon falling jurisprudence. of an exercise Davis, L.Ed.2d 1403 whether Administra- breach will effect, power see also 265-267, 354 U.S. into this 809, from its broader granted action. supra, classi- agen- legis- see, leg- 1

1271 procedural applicable affecting binding force as do court an rules the course of inevitably re- would regime. action judicature. agencies Such forensic Courts and adjudicative behav- in inconsistent sult powerless to alike must hold themselves ior, by agency or a court. an whether grant dispensation any from obedience to requires inexorably fairness Fundamental self-generated procedure norms of which persons confront- of all uniform treatment any given posture.11 clearly command in procedural context. by like ed a Uniformity plainly of procedure is mandat Okl. Const.12 Just as 5, 46, ed Art. § Ill powerless regu legislature is to itself legal procedure by late norms not uni OF PRO- MANDATORY UNIFORMITY UNDER STATE’S applicable i.e., lacking those CEDURE THIS formly — LAW FUNDAMENTAL application, having but across-the-board only special” impact13 “local or are agen an in the course of Rules invocable —so adjudica- the courts as well as all other cy’s adjudicative process have same ject Procedural rules that are tory, 266. A Without various 266-270. The decision full force and effect of law. See ly promulgated applied which their designed text rule, (4) other law or it or ings, bearing upon cy. decisions, (6) Interpretative Ball factors, which supra, upon Davis, supra, interpretative procedural S.Ct. author circumstances [Feb.1990 of items on this one. class of "Interpretative 358. The (2) legislatively prescribed a force of classifies implements But cf. Freight whether grant Gruff, 1288, not. legislative See a § exceptions challenge enumerates legislative grant of legislative distinguishing nonlegislative procedural rule is 5.03 judicial Davis, validity cum.supp.]. 1292, rules Davis, govern principle interpretation, Service, 3 Administrative Law 13.03[2] law. whether an usually rule-making authority rules specific power §§ 5.03 and at rules varies from case rules administrative weight rules rule, (3) supra, legislative the case. See 25 L.Ed.2d 547 [1970]. generally depends list, some textwriters decisions, general, rules. are supra, § may interpret factors which 397 interpretative any content of the rule is but rests or The those § between accorded Some courts have not agency's agency interpretative 5.03 at another norms fall outside the U.S. may not (9) nothing.” See regulations court 5.11 (8) upon rather than weight law-making power. 5.03, (5) adopted pursuant 532, 539-540, any rulings, Cooper, be in Cooper, supra granted to procedural at 300-306 Mezines, Stein, legislative and 300, violations that proceeding administrative a own nonlegislative interpretative in which the combination (1) rules to be plurality have have do § where the upon a question. have the proceed- supra rule has (7) not statute, is Davis, noted valid- statu- agen- some issue case. rule sub- rest and one any 90 at at School Black "self-generated” Reynolds v. P.2d L.Ed.2d Okl., tutionally” rules See, most not objecting dures U.S. plaining party. either or County denied, [1988]. intended to 642 Gruff, supra at courts may 79 S.Ct. v. ste nals_” or ceedings commissioners, "The Regulating Bowen, Adjective The See pertinent procedural exemption [1980], injure Gruff, supra e.g., Vitarelli v. 741, 754-756, make special that were part Ball rather by entitling him to Maule v. have held that an administrative terms Art. Dist. v. Okl. Legislature v. 444 U.S. 968, 973, 725-726 P.2d U.S., 790 party. ****** Freight have fashioned ad or and cases cited in Porter, rules part: law than [1979]; F.2d hoc rules substantially 599 F.2d 558 inquiry or § promulgated See not allowed Independent norms of regulate 1013, authorizing: "internally” spawned 13.03[2], §at 3 L.Ed.2d 1012 practice Service, to First State Bank ^[1980] changes arbitrators, to a shall not ... 740, City Okl., as United States v. 203-204 Seaton, protect American Farm Lines S.Ct. § 100 S.Ct. long 13.03[2], Fed. 742 before the agencies or courts are 760 P.2d procedural safeguard. (Opala, internal supra; procedure. a n. 5. Courts that ... 1465, 1472-1473, [9th Cir.1986]. Okl. prejudice as that action does [3rd agencies substantive benefit any School Dist. 359 U.S. to benefit a [1986], citing Mezines, Tchrs., or other tribu- relax or 662, n 9. Const., pass any local Cir.1979], J., interest of the Mezines, [1959]; Flores agency proce judicial pro- Caceres, dissenting); courts, 62 to violate Stein and 535, 540, the com Okl., or 821-824 Hudson L.Ed.2d provide modify for the No. party, "insti- Stein cert. Ind. The 440 ... 9, Any adju agencies government14 live govern from a departure dicator’s at-will plain is in contra adjective rule of law prescription of our constitution’s

vention unequal through the use

against treatment regime procedure. discriminatory enthusiastically join today

I therefore agen-

enforcing fidelity and to an obedience

cy’s regime our reversal of order.15 flawed

PEPSICO, INC., Petitioner, BRAGG, Respondent.

Robert Glen

No. 72525.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma. 2,

July 4,

Rehearing March Denied Goff,

Ben A. Frank P.C. E. Walta petitioner City, PepsiCo, Oklahoma for Inc. Stores, Inc., Okl., See Howard Y. v. T.G. & customers in with accordance the Commission [1986], judge’s P.2d 1262 the trial precedent remanding there is a case to comply order was reversed for failure with supply so can that it reasons for applicable procedural the strictures of an See, obey governing refusal to the rule's force. admissibility untimely- dealt that tendered medical with of an e.g., Exchange Chenery Securities and Com. v. Howard, report. As I view it 80, 94-95, Corp., 318 U.S. 63 S.Ct. judicial extends Accardi doctrine to those [1943], agency L.Ed. 626 decision aff'd after proceedings in which a court-fashioned norm of remand, 332 U.S. 67 S.Ct. 91 L.Ed. procedure ignored disregarded was to a liti- [1947]; Crowther, F.T.C. v. 430 F.2d prejudice. gant’s [D.C.Cir.1970]; By see 514-516 also Violations Agencies Regulations, Their Own 87 Harv. agree While I the Commission’s order under [1974], L.Rev. 629 today correctly failing review reversed for explain public utility’s want of notice to

Case Details

Case Name: Henry v. Corporation Commission

Court Name: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date Published: Oct 2, 1990

Citation: 825 P.2d 1262

Docket Number: 68776, 68793 and 68795

Court Abbreviation: Okla.