Hancock Rural Tel. Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 20077

• Decision Date: 23 December 1964
• Docket Number: No. 20077,20077
• Citation: 137 Ind.App. 14,203 N.E.2d 204
• Parties: , 57 P.U.R.3d 110 HANCOCK RURAL TELEPHONE CORPORATION, Markleville Telephone Company, Inc., Cadiz Rural Telephone Company, Appellants, v. The PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION of Indiana, Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Incorporated, General Telephone Company of Indiana, Inc., Knightstown Telephone Company, Appellees.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 204

203 N.E.2d 204

137 Ind.App. 14, 57 P.U.R.3d 110

HANCOCK RURAL TELEPHONE CORPORATION, Markleville Telephone

Company, Inc., Cadiz Rural Telephone Company, Appellants, v. The PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION of Indiana, Indiana Bell

Telephone Company, Incorporated, General Telephone

Company of Indiana, Inc., Knightstown

Telephone Company, Appellees.

No. 20077.

Appellate Court of Indiana, In Banc.

Dec. 23, 1964.

Transfer Denied March 9, 1965.

[137 INDAPP 16] Arthur H. Gemmer, Fauvre, Dongus, Ging & Gemmer, Indianapolis; Busby, Davisson, Cooper & Farr, Anderson, George & Harvey, New Castle, of counsel, for appellants.

Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Marcus E. Woods, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellees.

HUNTER, Judge.

This cause is before us on the appellee Public Service Commission's petition for rehearing and appellants' motion to dismiss said petition for rehearing.

Rule 2-22 of the Supreme Court provides that petitions for rehearing shall be filed within twenty (20) days of this court's decision. Petitions for rehearing also come within Supreme Court Rule 2-13 which provides that within the time allowed for filing petitions for rehearing, copies of the petition shall be served upon the parties affected or their attorneys of record. Muniz etc. v. United States et al. (1958), 129 Ind.App. 433, 155 N.E. 140, 156 N.E.2d 641; Norling v. Bailey (1951), 121 Ind.App. 457, 98 N.E.2d 513, 99 N.E.2d 439.

[137 INDAPP 46] The decision of the full court in this cause was filed October 14, 1964. On November 2, 1964 the appellee Commission filed its petition for rehearing with proof of service showing service only on the counsel for the appellants. On November 10, 1964, appellants filed a motion to dismiss said petition for rehearing, alleging that appellee Commission had failed to serve the other appellees of record within said twenty (20) day period, and attaching three affidavits in support of said allegation. In an analogous situation on a petition to transfer, the Supreme Court dismissed for failure to serve copies of petition to transfer upon parties appellee. Sizemore et al. v. Public Service Comm. of Ind. et al. (1962), 242 Ind. 498, 180 N.E.2d 232.

This court holds that the appellees Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Incorporated, Knightstown Telephone Company and General Telephone Company of Indiana, Inc. are 'parties affected' within the meaning of Rule 2-13, supra, and that this rule applies to service of copies of petitions for rehearing within said twenty (20) day period.

The Supreme Court rules being binding upon all litigants and the court, Guthrie v. Blakely et al. (1955), 127 Ind.App. 119, 130 N.E.2d 62, 131 N.E.2d 357; Muniz etc. v. United States et al., supra, and the record being thus conclusive as to appellee Commission's failure to comply with said court rules, this court now sustains appellants' motion to dismiss and holds that the appellee Commission's petition for rehearing should be dismissed. Matlaw Corp. v. War Damage Corp. (1953), 123 Ind.App. 593, 112 N.E.2d 233, 868; Automobile Underwriters, Incorporated v. Smith (1960), 131 Ind.App. 454, 166 N.E.2d 341, 167 N.E.2d 882 (1961); Id., 241 Ind. 302, 171 N.E.2d 823; Muniz etc. v. United States et al., supra.

[137 INDAPP 47] The court in conclusion calls to the attention of the appellee Commission that the filing of a petition for rehearing which does not comply with the provisions of the Rules of the Supreme Court does not extend the time stated in our decision for...