Union Pacific Railroad v. Public Service Commission
Wyoming Supreme Court
1Dissent
McCLINTOCK, J.,
in which PEARSON, District Judge (R.), joins, dissenting.
I believe the commission has wholly failed to comply with the explicit direction of § 10 of the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act1 requiring separate findings of fact and conclusions of law, and would therefore remand the proceedings with instructions to make such findings and conclusions. This procedure was followed in Pan American Petroleum Corporation v. Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (Wyo.1968), 446 P.2d 550, 555, and I think that Mr. Justice Gray there said about everything that needs to be said.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation CommissionWyoming Supreme Court · 1968
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Order of Railroad TelegraphersNebraska Supreme Court · 1952
- Missouri Pacific Rld. Co. v. State Corporation Comm.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1964
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Wilber Chamber of CommerceNebraska Supreme Court · 1965