proceedings in the courts, refer matters, where appropriate, to the other governmental authorities, or take other appropriate action. 18 C.F.R. § lb.7 (emphasis supplied). Precisely because any impact of a section 14 investigation is contingent on future administrative action, the Court in FPC v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U.S. 591, 618-19, 64 S.Ct. 281, 295, 88 L.Ed. 333 (1944), held “certain findings as to the lawfulness of past rates which Hope had charged its interstate customers” made in the context of a section 14 investigation were not reviewable by the courts, but rather “a preliminary, interim step towards possible future action.” Id. at 618-19, 64 S.Ct. at 295. See also United States v. Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad Co., 273 U.S. 299, 47 S.Ct. 413, 71 L.Ed. 351 (1927) (<HOLDING>). These cases clearly demonstrate that the
holding that there is no constitutional duty to do a better investigation and that a decision not to conduct a more thorough investigation does not invade an accuseds rights holding that a valid defense to a subsequent lawsuit does not prevent an eeoc investigation holding that police officers have a duty to conduct an investigation into the basis of the witness report holding that after a reasonable investigation an insurer must promptly settle a claim for the value or within the range assigned to the claim as a result of its investigation holding valuation of property after investigation pursuant to  19a of the valuation act not re viewable because no aggrievement caused fact that the valuation constitutes prima facie evidence in subsequent actions does not prevent the report from being solely an exercise of the function of investigation