Opinion
9-22-1953
KEY SYSTEM TRANSIT LINES, a corporation, petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California IN AND FOR ALAMEDA COUNTY, respondent. S. F. 18924.
KEY SYSTEM TRANSIT LINES, a corporation, petitioner,
v.
SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California IN AND FOR ALAMEDA COUNTY, respondent.
SCHAUER, Justice. (Dissenting to order denying writs.)
I would issue the alternative writs at this time and make them returnable for hearing on our calendar which is already set to be called the week of September 28, 1953, in the meantime staying proceedings in the court below.
I thus note my dissent from the order of the majority denying without opinion, and in legal effect without prejudice, the applications for the writs, because I am of the view that in the public interest this controversy should be finally disposed of on its merits at the earliest possible moment to the end that the concerned public transportation service should be resumed as soon as the machinery of government can lawfully bring that to pass, and that the delay of this court in accpeting jurisdiction must inevitably tend to delay ultimate decision of the cause.
It appears to be unquestioned that the of the entire proceeding to which these applications for writs are directed depends upon one basic question of law, i. e., the jurisdiction and power of the superior court to make and enforce its order directing the petitioner here to resume normal operations and impliedly requiring petitioner to meet one or the other of the union's demands relative to increased rates of pay or arbitration.
Upon the showing here it appears that the above suggested basic question of jurisdiction as among the superior court, the Public Utilities Commission, and the National Labor Relations Board is a serious and substantial one and must eventually be decided by this court. It could be decided within a matter of days by issuing the writs applied for; their denial in the form of the majority order leaves the question open for decision at a later date upon subsequent proceedings and in the absence of some intervening fortuity which has not even been suggested serves only to delay the ultimate restoration of the involved transportation service.
The public interest and the rights of all parties concerned would, I believe, be better served by action at this time.
EDMONDS, J., concurs.