TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

D. C. Transit System, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia

D. C. TRANSIT SYSTEM, INC., Appellant, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee

D. C. Transit Sys., Inc. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n of the Dist. of Columbia, 292 F.2d 734 (D.C. Cir. 1961)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 18, 1961
Docket
No. 15967_1
Judges
Phillips, Tenth, Bazelon, Bastían
Citations
292 F.2d 734110 U.S. App. D.C. 2411961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4461

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court granting summary judgment, on cross motions, in favor of the appellee Commission in this suit by appellant Transit Company to set aside the Commission’s order of September 30, 1959. The court held, in a memorandum opinion, that the Commission’s order, directing the transit company to transfer $613,661.28 of the proceeds of the sale of property, from its earned surplus account to three different accounts, was not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.

Sections 43-310 and 43-314, D.C.Code (1951), confer broad discretion upon the Public Utilities Commission in regulating the accounting procedures of utility companies under its jurisdiction. Our function in reviewing the Commission’s orders and decisions is limited to questions of law, including constitutiona1 questions; and the Commission’s findings of fact are conclusive unless it appears that the findings are unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. D.C.Code § 43-706 (1951). We find no error on the part of the District Court in determining that the Commission’s order of September 30, 1959, was not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. We see no constitutional question involved.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1973: 31974: 21978: 11988: 119732026peak 1973 · 3

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list