American Metal Products Company

Text (OCR of the scan; may contain errors)

situations warranting another course. It is, however, equitable and proper that parties be afforded equal time, running concurrently, for the submission of their suggested findings. This has been the customary practice in Commission proceedings, and as we have previously held in a prior interpretation* of that rule, such course should. be departed from only in unusual circumstances. The order appealed from here, however, contains no showing of special circumstances or exigencies impelling a departure from the customary practice and other facets of the case clearly suggest their absence. The rule as above interpreted is conducive to informed and expeditious decision of cases on their merits. In the Commission’s view, simultaneous submissions of proposed findings better engender full discussion of all alternative factual and legal theories available, including arguments in favor of those proposed for adoption and against those anticipated to be advanced by the adversary, and, when thus prepared, proposed findings constitute informative briefs: on the evidence. Successive submissions in Commission proceedings, however, envision narrowing of the issues to those advocated by the respective parties, with respondents’ counter findings and staff counsel’s rebuttal submissions serving primarily as memoranda of points and authorities in support of their exceptions to their opponents’ contentions. Hence, simultaneous filing of suggested findings encourages more comprehensive coverage of the facts. Furthermore, such filing practice obviously is attended by less likelihood of delaying proceedings unduly.

In view of the foregoing, the Commission is of the opinion that the hearing examiner erred in failing to accord the parties equal time, running concurrently, for preparation and submission of their proposed findings and conclusions. The appeal is granted and the case is being remanded for further proceedings in regular course, including appropriate modification of the order of November 15, 1960.

Chairman Iintner dissented to the decision herein.

ORDER REMANDING CASE

This matter having come on to be heard upon the interlocutory appeal filed by counsel supporting the complaint from the hearing examiner’s order of November 15, 1960, and upon the respondents’ answers in opposition to such appeal; and the Commission, for reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, having granted the appeal:

It is ordered, That this proceeding be, and it hereby is, remanded to the hearing examiner for appropriate modification of said order. Chairman Kintner dissenting.

* Luria Brothers & Company, Inc., Docket 6156 (Decision on interlocutory appeal, July 30, 1958).

SCOTT PAPER COMPANY