Central Illinois Light Co. v. Illinois Commerce Commission
| Decision Date | 04 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 43013,43013 |
| Citation | 47 Ill.2d 257,265 N.E.2d 154 |
| Parties | CENTRAL ILLINOIS LIGHT COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
C. V. O'Hern, Jr., of O'Hern, O'Hern & Wombacher, Peoria, for appellants.
John H. Doeringer, Chicago, and David A. Nicoll and Ross E. Canterbury, of Westervelt, Johnson, Nicoll & Keller, Peoria, for appellees.
Alton and Southern Railroad, together with 45 other railroads (hereinafter railroads) filed a petition with the Illinois Commerce Commission on August 26, 1968, requesting that the Commission permit an increase in Illinois intrastate rates. The Commission granted the petition and on May 23, 1969, a petition for rehearing and reconsideration was filed on behalf of four electrical utilities (Central Illinois Light Co., Central Illinois Service Co., Illinois Power Co., and Electrical Energy, Inc.). On June 4, the Commission granted the petition and set the matter for oral argument on June 25, which was later cancelled on its own motion. On August 6, the Commission reaffirmed the order of April 23, with certain changes and modifications. A petition for rehearing of that order was filed by the four electrical utilities and fourteen other interveners on September 4. The Commission denied the petition for rehearing on September 17, and a notice of appeal to the circuit court of Peoria County was filed on October 14. The railroads filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, contending that because the appellants had failed to file their notice of appeal within 30 days from the August 6 order, their notice of appeal was not timely. The circuit court of Peoria County allowed the motion to dismiss, and this direct appeal followed. The Illinois Commerce Commission did not join in the motion to dismiss nor did they participate in this appeal.
The sole question presented for review is whether the appellants filed their notice of appeal from the decision of the Illinois Commerce Commission within the time provided by law.
Section 68 of the Public Utilities Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 111 2/3, par. 72) provides in part: 'Within 30 days after the service of any order or decision of the Commission refusing an application for rehearing of any rule, regulation, order or decision of the Commission, * * * any person or corporation affected by such rule, regulation, order or decision, may appeal to the Circuit Court in the county of 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.' Section 67 of the Public Utilities Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 111 2/3, par. 71) provides in part: and further states 'Only one rehearing shall be granted by the Commission * * *.'
Appellants contend that their appeal is timely because filed a notice of appeal within 30 days of the denial of the petition for rehearing in accord with the requirements of section 68, and that section 67 is not applicable. In Alton Railroad v. Illinois Commerce Comm., 407 Ill. 202, 95 N.E.2d 76, this court held that a petition for rehearing must be filed to an order of the Commerce Commission before an appeal may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Du Page Utility Co. v. Illinois Commerce Commission
...(Continental Air Transport Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm., 38 Ill.2d 563, 232 N.E.2d 728; see also, Central Illinois Light Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm., Ill., 265 N.E.2d 154.) Here, even though evidence of the cost of fluoridation was heard for the first time on rehearing, it resulted onl......
-
One Way Liquors, Inc. v. Byrne
...Inc. v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. (1975), 31 Ill.App.3d 887, 335 N.E.2d 110; also Central Illinois Light Co. v. Commerce Commission (1970), 47 Ill.2d 257, 265 N.E.2d 154.) As the Illinois Supreme Court stated in City of Edwardsville, 412 Ill. 36, 37, 104 N.E.2d "This court had occasion to......
-
Condell Hosp. v. Health Facilities Planning Bd.
...process. The [appellees] have not been prejudiced by appellants' election of remedy * * *." (Central Illinois Light Co. v. Illinois Commerce Com. (1970), 47 Ill.2d 257, 260, 265 N.E.2d 154, 156.) The added uncertainty regarding the present appellants' intervention rights in a proceeding fro......
-
Central Illinois Light Co. v. Illinois Commerce Commission
...of the intervenors, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Peoria County was reversed in Central Ill. Light Co. et al. v. Ill. Commerce Commission et al., 47 Ill.2d 257, 265 N.E.2d 154, and remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings. Such further proceedings were held resulting in ......