{ "id": 5329456, "name": "SOUTHERN UNION GAS COMPANY, Petitioner-Appellee, v. NEW MEXICO PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent, United States of America, Proposed Intervenor-Appeilant", "name_abbreviation": "Southern Union Gas Co. v. New Mexico Public Service Commission", "decision_date": "1971-03-22", "docket_number": "No. 9171", "first_page": "405", "last_page": "407", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "82 N.M. 405" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "482 P.2d 913" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "165 F.Supp. 695", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 360529 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/165/0695-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 L.Ed. 675", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "year": 1850, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "104 N.W.2d 167", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "11 Wis.2d 111", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis. 2d", "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "81 N.M. 379", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5359570 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/81/0379-01" ] }, { "cite": "156 So.2d 287", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So. 2d", "case_ids": [ 9848721 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/so2d/156/0287-01" ] }, { "cite": "174 N.E.2d 644", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "82 N.M. 125", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5331390 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/82/0125-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 N.M. 672", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5372643 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/75/0672-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 N.M. 51", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1582899 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/55/0051-01" ] }, { "cite": "219 F.Supp. 691", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 72305 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/219/0691-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 F.2d 860", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1284415 ], "year": 1924, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/1/0860-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 F.Supp. 900", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 1416778 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/94/0900-01" ] }, { "cite": "312 U.S. 600", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 359249 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1941, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/312/0600-01" ] }, { "cite": "255 F.Supp. 434", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 1546163 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/255/0434-01" ] }, { "cite": "241 La. 687", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "La.", "case_ids": [ 9884656, 3199959 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/so2d/130/0652-01", "/la/241/0687-01" ] }, { "cite": "201 F.2d 334", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1277427 ], "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/201/0334-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 574, "char_count": 8232, "ocr_confidence": 0.709, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.793387653515966e-07, "percentile": 0.8970978616900058 }, "sha256": "3b3749e3ec43ad64cc256e7dfa053c1350a0a6c35b1e44af1a15891c1e3cc0fa", "simhash": "1:b3c99c7ebd67c606", "word_count": 1321 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:16:32.756560+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "COMPTON, C. J., and McMANUS, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "SOUTHERN UNION GAS COMPANY, Petitioner-Appellee, v. NEW MEXICO PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent, United States of America, Proposed Intervenor-Appeilant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nTACKETT, Justice.\nThis action was brought in the District Court of Santa Fe County, New Mexico, by Southern Union Gas Company, designated \u201cCompany,\u201d requesting review of an order of the New Mexico Public Service Commission, designated \u201cCommission,\u201d which denied Company\u2019s application for a rate increase. The appellant United States of America, designated \u201cU.S.,\u201d sought to intervene as a party in support of the Commission\u2019s order. The U.S. appeals the order denying intervention. The district court did, however, allow the U.S. to appear as amicus curiae.\nThere are two questions before the court in the instant case: (1) Is the U.S. a \u201cperson\u201d under \u00a7 68-3-2, N.M.S.A., (1953 Comp., 1969 Pocket Supp.) ? (2) Did the court err in denying the motion of the U.S. to intervene? Both questions are answered in the negative.\nSection 68-3-2 (D), supra, reads as follows :\n\u201c \u2018Person\u2019 means individuals, firms, partnerships, companies, rural electric co-operatives * * * corporations, and lessees, trustees or receivers appointed by any court whatsoever. It shall not mean any municipality as herein defined unless such municipality shall have elected to come within the terms of the Public Utility Act * * *. In the absence of such voluntary election by any municipality to come within the provisions of the Public Utility Act, as amended, such municipality shall be expressly excluded from the operation of said act, and from the operation of all its provisions, and no such municipality shall for any purpose be considered a public utility;\u201d\nWith respect to the intervention question, this court is certainly in accord with the statement contained in Algonquin Gas Transmission Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 201 F.2d 334 (1st Cir. 1953), in which we find the following:\n\u201cThe Court does not propose that our hearing and consideration of the limited issues above stated shall be bogged down by arguments on various motions for leave to intervene which have been submitted, and by oral arguments and briefs on behalf of the numerous would-be intervenors. We have decided to deny all the pending motions for leave to intervene, * *\nUnited Gas Pipe Line Company v. Louisiana Public Service Commission, 241 La. 687, 130 So.2d 652 (1961), held:\n\u201c * * * that the interest required to authorize intervention must be a direct one by which the intervenor is to obtain immediate gain or suffer immediate loss by the judgment which may be rendered between the original parties. The interest must be closely connected with the object in dispute and founded on some right, lien, or claim, either conventional or legal. * * * \u201d\nWe do not perceive the U.S. has such an interest in the case before us.\nThe U.S. cannot be considered a \u201cperson\u201d as that word is used in the Civil Rights Act. Broome v. Simon, 255 F.Supp. 434 (W.D.La.1965). Neither is the U.S. a \u201cperson\u201d under the Bankruptcy Act, nor under the Sherman Antitrust Act. See, United States v. Cooper Corporation, 312 U.S. 600, 61 S.Ct. 742, 85 L.Ed. 1071 (1941). Also see, United States v. Far East Conference, 94 F.Supp. 900 (T.D.N.J.1951).\nThere are many statutes in which neither the U.S. nor States of the Union are considered as a \u201cperson.\u201d When the legislature has wanted to include sovereigns or other governmental bodies in its statutes, it has known how to do so. For example, see the following state statutes which have specifically included the U.S: Administrative Procedures Act, \u00a7 4 \u2014 32-2(F), N.M.S.A., (1953 Comp., 1969 Pocket Supp.) \u201cgovernmental subdivision or public or private organization of any character other than an agency;\u201d Gross Receipts and Compensating Tax Act, \u00a7 72-16A-3(H) (2), N.M.S.A., (1953 Comp., 1969 Pocket Supp.) \u201cthe United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof, the state of New Mexico or any political subdivision thereof;\u201d Pluman Rights Act, \u00a7 4 \u2014 33-2(A), N.M.S.A, (1953 Comp, 1969 Pocket Supp.) \u201cthe state and all of its political subdivisions;\u201d Rural Electric Co-operatives Act, \u00a7 45-4-31 (B), N.M.S.A, (1953 Comp, 1969 Pocket Supp.) \u201cfederal agency, state or political subdivision or agency thereof or any body politic;\u201d Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act, \u00a7 22-22-2(G), N.M.S.A, (1953 Comp, 1969 Pocket Supp.) \u201cgovernment or political subdivision, public corporation, public authority.\u201d\nThe case of Davis v. Pringle, 1 F.2d 860 (4th Cir. 1924), held:\n\u201cThe failure to include the United States and the states in the definition could not have been inadvertent. The United States and the several states of the- Union are not persons, and are not commonly thought of as persons, and if it had been intended that \u2018persons\u2019 should have such a comprehensive and unusual meaning as to include them, the framers of the definition would have said so.\u201d\nBy the same token, the legislature, under \u00a7 68-3-2 (D), supra, did not see fit to include or even mention the United States or governmental agencies. United States v. Biloxi Municipal School District, 219 F.Supp. 691 (S.D.Miss.1963).\nSection 68-3-2(D), supra, has been reenacted three times since 1941, the last time in 1967, and each re-enactment has resulted in a definition identical to the original. Thus, the legislature has had three opportunities to change definitional language and expand it, if it cared to do so.\nThe meaning of a statute is to he ascertained primarily from its terms and where they are plain and unambiguous, such as in \u00a7 68-3-2 (D), supra, there is no room for construction. \u201cHence, the oft repeated maxim that \u2018a statute means what it says.\u2019 \u201d Hendricks v. Hendricks, 55 N.M. 51, 226 P.2d 464 (1950); Martinez v. Research Park, Inc., 75 N.M. 672, 410 P.2d 200 (1965); State ex rel. Maloney v. Sierra, 82 N.M. 125, 477 P.2d 301 (1970).\n\u201c * * * \u2018the words \u201cperson or corporation\u201d do not in their ordinary signification mean a sovereign government\u2019 * *\nIn Re McLaughlin\u2019s Estate, 174 N.E.2d 644 (Ohio Prob.1960). See also, In Re Shepard\u2019s Succession, 156 So.2d 287 (La.App.1963).\nOrdinarily, a person cannot appeal from a judgment unless he has a particular interest therein and is aggrieved or prejudiced thereby. His interest must be immediate and pecuniary. Ruidoso State Bank v. Brumlow, 81 N.M. 379, 467 P.2d 395 (1970).\n\u201c * * * The word \u2018aggrieved\u2019 refers to a substantial grievance, a denial of some personal or property right or the imposition of a burden or obligation.\nCity of Milwaukee v. Public Service Commission, 11 Wis.2d 111, 104 N.W.2d 167 (1960). The U.S. was not aggrieved or prejudiced in the instant case as the Commission\u2019s order was in favor of the U.S.\nThe fact that the U.S. was allowed to intervene in the Commission\u2019s hearing does not necessarily give the U.S. standing to intervene in the judicial review. United Gas Pipe Line Company v. Louisiana Public Service Commission, supra.\nThe U.S. relies heavily on the cases of Cotton v. United States, 52 U.S. (11 Howard) 229, 13 L.Ed. 675 (1850), and United States v. Coumantaros, 165 F.Supp. 695 (D.Md.1958), in support of its contentions. These cases are easily distinguishable and do not afford the U.S. any comfort. We do, however, find in United States v. Coumantaros, supra, the following:\n\u201c \u2018* * * Whether the word \u201cperson\u201d or \u201ccorporation\u201d includes a State or the United States depends upon its legislative environment. * * * \u2019 \u201d\nUnder \u00a7 68-3-2 (D), supra, we do not have a favorable environment for the position of the U.S.\nWe do not observe a constitutional question as being involved in the instant case, therefore, further comment is unnecessary.\nThe decision of the lower court will be affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nCOMPTON, C. J., and McMANUS, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "TACKETT, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Victor R. Ortega, U. S. Atty., Stephen L. Reveal, Asst. U. S. Atty., Albuquerque, L. Patrick Gray, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert V. Zener, Walter H. Fleischer, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellant.", "Montgomery, Federici, Andrews, Hannahs & Morris, Seth D. Montgomery, Santa Fe, Strasburger, Price, Kelton, Martin & Unis, A. S. Grenier, Dallas, Tex., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "482 P.2d 913\nSOUTHERN UNION GAS COMPANY, Petitioner-Appellee, v. NEW MEXICO PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent, United States of America, Proposed Intervenor-Appeilant.\nNo. 9171.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nMarch 22, 1971.\nVictor R. Ortega, U. S. Atty., Stephen L. Reveal, Asst. U. S. Atty., Albuquerque, L. Patrick Gray, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert V. Zener, Walter H. Fleischer, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellant.\nMontgomery, Federici, Andrews, Hannahs & Morris, Seth D. Montgomery, Santa Fe, Strasburger, Price, Kelton, Martin & Unis, A. S. Grenier, Dallas, Tex., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0405-01", "first_page_order": 461, "last_page_order": 463 }