Ameren Transmission Co. of Ill. v. Hutchings
| Decision Date | 18 October 2018 |
| Docket Number | 123014,123006,122999,123009,123015,Docket Nos. 122973,123018,123011,123001,123016,122988,123003,123019,123017,123008,122998,123000,123012,123007,123004,123002,123021 cons.,122996,122987,123013,122993,123020,122997,123005,122985,122986,122994,122992,122989 |
| Citation | 120 N.E.3d 998,427 Ill.Dec. 931,2018 IL 122973 |
| Parties | AMEREN TRANSMISSION COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. Richard L. HUTCHINGS, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
¶ 1 To facilitate the construction of a high-voltage transmission line, Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois (ATXI) filed eminent domain complaints against several landowners located in Edgar County, Illinois (Landowners). The Landowners filed a traverse and motion to dismiss, and the circuit court dismissed every complaint on the grounds that section 8-406.1 of the Public Utilities Act ( 220 ILCS 5/8-406.1 (West 2016) ), as it existed at the time, is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to the Landowners. This direct appeal followed. Ill. S. Ct. R. 302(a) (eff. Oct. 4, 2011).
¶ 3 The Public Utilities Act (Act) ( 220 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq. (West 2010) ) requires a public utility to obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Illinois Commerce Commission (Commission) before transacting business or beginning new construction within Illinois. Section 8-406 of the Act sets forth the requirements for obtaining a certificate. Id. § 8-406. Effective July 28, 2010, the legislature enacted section 8-406.1 of the Act (id. § 8-406.1), which permits a public utility to apply for a certificate using an expedited procedure when seeking to construct a new high-voltage electric service line and related facilities.
¶ 4 On November 7, 2012, ATXI petitioned the Commission for a certificate of public convenience and necessity that would authorize ATXI "to construct, operate and maintain a new 345 kV electric transmission line * * * and related facilities, including certain new or expanded substations, within * * * Illinois." ATXI's proposed plan was designated the Illinois Rivers Project (Project), and portions of the Project were to be located within several Illinois counties, spanning 375 miles across the state. ATXI elected to file its petition pursuant to the expedited process set forth in section 8-406.1.
¶ 5 ATXI's proposal included both a primary route and an alternate route, and the Commission sent notice of the impending proceedings to several thousand potentially impacted landowners. After the notices went out, certain interested and affected parties sought and were granted leave to intervene. Some of these intervenors then proposed alternative routes of their own for certain segments of the Project. One such alternative was proposed by an intervening group named Stop Coalition, and it involved the "Kansas-Indiana State Line" segment of the Project. In the end, the Commission approved the Project and granted ATXI a certificate of public convenience and necessity, based on a route that included Stop Coalition's alternative proposal for the Kansas-Indiana State Line segment.
¶ 6 Shortly thereafter, several landowners from the Kansas-Indiana State Line segment of the Project filed a petition to intervene. The petition alleged that, although these landowners owned property that was either on or directly adjacent to the alternative route proposed by Stop Coalition, they did not receive notice of that fact until after the Commission had entered its decision approving the Project. Accordingly, along with their petition to intervene, these landowners filed both a motion to strike the Commission's proceedings relating to the Kansas-Indiana State Line segment of the Project and an application for rehearing. The Commission denied both the motion to strike and the application for rehearing, but it then granted the petition to intervene for the limited purpose of accommodating appellate review.
¶ 7 A direct appeal to the appellate court followed (see 220 ILCS 5/10-201(a) (West 2016) ), and the landowners impacted by the Kansas-Indiana State Line segment of the Project were among the parties to that appeal. Adams County Property Owners & Tenant Farmers v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n , 2015 IL App (4th) 130907, 394 Ill.Dec. 728, 36 N.E.3d 1019. In a lengthy opinion, the appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision approving the Project and granting the certificate of public convenience and necessity. Id. ¶ 102. In the course of doing so, the appellate court considered and rejected the affected landowners' argument that their due process rights were violated because they never received notice of Stop Coalition's alternative route proposal. Id. ¶¶ 78-80.
¶ 8 Following disposition of the direct administrative appeal, ATXI attempted unsuccessfully to negotiate easement rights with the Landowners. Consequently, in early 2016, ATXI sought and secured from the Commission authority to obtain the necessary easements by eminent domain. Thereafter, ATXI filed a total of 35 eminent domain complaints against the Landowners. The Landowners, in turn, filed a traverse and motion to dismiss. Although the Landowners asserted traditional traverse claims, they ultimately did not develop or defend those claims in the subsequent proceedings.1 Instead, the Landowners focused on their motion to dismiss, which argued that ATXI's eminent domain complaints must be dismissed because the Landowners' due process rights were violated during the proceeding in which the Commission granted the certificate of public convenience and necessity. More specifically, the Landowners argued that their due process rights were violated because they were never notified that their property would be affected by the route that the Commission ultimately approved.
¶ 9 On September 25, 2017, the circuit court of Edgar County entered a 24-page written order granting the Landowners' motion to dismiss on the grounds that the applicable version2 of section 8-406.1 was unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to the Landowners. In support of its conclusion that section 8-406.1 was un constitutional on its face, the circuit court explained:
Accordingly, the circuit court dismissed all 35 of ATXI's eminent domain complaints.
¶ 10 ATXI appealed the circuit court's decision directly to this court. Ill. S. Ct. R. 302(a) (eff. Oct. 4, 2011).
¶ 12 We need not reach the merits of the circuit court's due process analysis, as the circuit court clearly lacked the necessary jurisdiction to review the legality and constitutionality of the Commission's administrative proceedings.
¶ 13 Illinois courts are courts of general jurisdiction and enjoy a presumption of subject-matter jurisdiction. Illinois State Treasurer v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n , 2015 IL 117418, ¶ 14, 391 Ill.Dec. 18, 30 N.E.3d 288. That presumption is inapplicable, however, where administrative proceedings are involved. Id. Illinois courts are empowered to review administrative actions only "as provided by law." Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 6 (appellate court), § 9 (circuit court). When the legislature has, through law, prescribed procedures for obtaining judicial review of an administrative decision, a court is said to exercise "special statutory jurisdiction" when it reviews an administrative decision pursuant to that statutory scheme. People ex rel. Madigan v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n , 2014 IL 116642, ¶ 10, 386 Ill.Dec. 655, 21 N.E.3d 418. Special statutory jurisdiction is limited by the language of the act conferring it. Id. A court has no powers from any other source. Id. A party seeking to invoke a court's special statutory jurisdiction must therefore comply strictly with the procedures prescribed by the statute. Id. If the mode of procedure set forth in the statute is not strictly pursued, no jurisdiction is conferred on the court. Id.
¶ 14 This court has held that "[r]eview of final decisions of the Commission * * * involves the exercise of special statutory jurisdiction and is constrained by the provisions of the Public Utilities Act." Illinois Landowners Alliance, NFP v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n , 2017 IL 121302, ¶ 29, 418 Ill.Dec. 290, 90 N.E.3d 448 ; see also People ex rel. Madigan v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n , 231 Ill. 2d 370, 387, 326 Ill.Dec. 10, 899 N.E.2d 227 (2008). The relevant provision of the Act is section 10-201, and it states that a party affected by a rule, regulation, order, or decision of the Commission has 35 days to "appeal to the appellate court of the judicial district in which the subject matter of the hearing is situated * * * for the purpose of having the reasonableness or lawfulness of the rule, regulation, order or decision inquired into and determined." 220 ILCS 5/10-201(a) (West 2016). Section 10-201 goes on to state that, in such cases, the appellate court "shall reverse a Commission rule, regulation, order or decision, in whole or in part, if it finds that * * * [t]he proceedings or manner by which the Commission considered and decided its rule, regulation, order or decision were in violation of the State or federal constitution or laws, to the prejudice of the appellant." Id. § 10-201(e)(iv)(D).
Thus, under the plain language of the Act, the power to review a final decision of the Commission, including whether "[t]he proceedings or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Enbridge Pipeline (Ill.), L.L.C. v. Murfin
...filed a motion to supplement its motion to strike to address our supreme court's decision in Ameren Transmission Co. of Illinois v. Hutchings , 2018 IL 122973, 427 Ill.Dec. 931, 120 N.E.3d 998. Because we have concluded that landowners' appeal is not brought in bad faith, we decline to stri......
- Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Krop
-
City of Mascoutah v. Ill. Commerce Comm'n
...by the language of the act conferring it. [Citation.] A court has no powers from any other source. [Citation.]" Ameren Transmission Co. of Illinois v. Hutchings , 2018 IL 122973, ¶ 13, 427 Ill.Dec. 931, 120 N.E.3d 998. ¶ 11 Here, the City seeks, pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 335 (......