Jeannie's Grocery v. Baldwin County Elec. Membership Corp.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1976 |
| Citation | 331 So.2d 665 |
| Parties | JEANNIE'S GROCERY et al. v. BALDWIN COUNTY ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION. SC 1187. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
J. Don Foster, Foley, Fred G. Helmsing, Mobile, Champ Lyons, Jr., Montgomery, for appellants.
John Chason, Bay Minette, Charles B. Arendall, Jr., and W. Ramsey McKinney, Jr., Mobile, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Baldwin County dismissing the complaint of appellants, Jeannie's Grocery et al.
The complaint was filed as a class action suit against appellee, Baldwin County Electric Membership Corporation, a cooperative, organized under the Electric Cooperative Act, Act 231, Alabama Laws, 1939, Tit. 18, Chapter 3, Sections 31--59, Code of Alabama 1940, Recompiled 1958, in contemplation of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 as amended, 7 U.S.C., Sections 901--950(b).
Appellants brought this action on behalf of themselves and members of a class. The class was broken into sub-classes of 'residential' and 'commercial' consumers of electricity supplied by appellee. Appellants complained of the implementation of a seasonal premises classification which resulted in the charges to them and others similarly situated of higher rates than those not so classified. It was further averred by appellants that the criteria for determination of seasonal premises consumers was arbitrary, capricious, not reasonably related to a rational standard for determination of 'seasonal premises' consumers, and that the degree of disparity in price treatment between those subject to the seasonal premises classification and those not subject to it constituted an unlawful price discrimination. Finally, appellants arverred that the appellee is a public service corporation and, as such, has an obligation independent of contract, franchise, or statute, not to charge extortionate or discriminatory rates and has breached that obligation.
Appellants claimed money damages plus attorney's fees.
The rate classification complained of by appellants incorporated a 'demand charge' factor. Essentially, the members of appellee included in this classification were charged at the rate of 75% Of their peak electrical demand for the preceding eleven months, regardless of the amount of electrical energy actually used by them.
The only issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting appellee's motion to dismiss.
Appellants contend that even if they are denied the specific relief requested in the form of money damages, they have alleged sufficient facts to authorize the court to award declaratory or injunctive relief on the question of whether the rates imposed upon appellants were discriminatory and unreasonable.
Appellants also contend that the trial court erred in its determination that it lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter and in its conclusion that appellee is immune from judicial review.
The principal points of appellee's argument in response may be summarized as follows:
1. Sections 42 and 43 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901 bar the judiciary from exercise of legislative power or assumption of legislative functions.
2. Rate making is a legislative function, not a judicial function.
3. The judiciary cannot engage in rate making, either directly or indirectly.
4. The appellants here are asking the court to determine what their reasonable electrical rate would have been and award them damages for the difference between that rate and what they actually paid.
5. To detrmine damages, therefore, would necessarily involve the court in retrospective rate making, a function which the judiciary is constitutionally barred from undertaking.
Three grounds were set forth in appellee's motion to dismiss the complaint. They are set out in the transcript as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Snider v. Morgan
...can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief,” ’ Jeannie's Grocery v. Baldwin County Electric Membership Corporation, 331 So.2d 665, 667 (Ala.1976). Upon consideration of the motion, which goes only to the face of the complaint, the allegations are to ......
-
Sims v. Lewis
...can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief,' " Jeannie's Grocery v. Baldwin County Electric Membership Corporation, 331 So.2d 665, 667 (Ala.1976). Upon consideration of the motion, which goes only to the face of the complaint, the allegations are to ......
-
Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc. v. Henderson
...when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him to relief. Jeannie's Grocery v. Baldwin County Electric Membership Corp., 331 So.2d 665 (Ala.1976). This is not a case in which such a motion should have been We also find that the two counts set out the......
-
East v. East
...be unable to prove any set of facts in support of their claim which would entitle them to relief. Jeannie's Grocery v. Baldwin County Elec. Mem. Corp., (Ala.), 331 So.2d 665, 666-667 (1976). A trial court is not controlled by a separation agreement of the parties. The court may adopt or rej......