Public Service Commission v. Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co., 29295
| Decision Date | 11 May 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 29295,29295 |
| Citation | 235 Ind. 394,134 N.E.2d 53 |
| Parties | The PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION of Indiana, Appellant, v. CHICAGO, INDIANAPOLIS AND LOUISVILLE RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Arthur H. Gemmer, Frank S. Spencer, Deputy Attys.Gen., for appellant.
Harker & Irwin, Russel P. Harker, Frankfort, Sammons & Sammons, Kentland, Albert S. Long, Jr., Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for appellee.
The appellee on petition for rehearing contends that this court should state in its opinion that the Newton Circuit Court heard the case on its merits and that the Public Service Commission should set aside its prior order and should make a new order directing the abandonment of the station in question; that in 'so doing this court neither makes an order for the Commission nor mandates the Commission to make any particular order, but only states the law for the guidance of the Commission and gives meaning to the final language of this court, 'and for further proceedings consistent with the law stated in this opinion.''
This seems to us to be the same point raised and discussed in the original opinion, namely, that neither this court nor the trial court may make an affirmative order on the merits and substitute its opinion for that of the administrative body. We see no difference in a direct affirmative order made to an administrative body to vacate and abandon the station, than an opinion which states exactly what the Commission should do on the merits followed by a mandate to the Commission 'for further proceedings consistent with the law stated in the opinion.'
The purpose of a judicial review of an administrative order by the court is not to decide the matter on the merits for the administrative body but rather solely to determine whether or not the order made by the administrative body was outside the limits and jurisdiction of such body. Once the matter of jurisdiction is determined the court has no further right to interfere with an administrative procedure which belongs to another department of the government--not the judiciary. As a court, we have no right to substitute our judgment on the merits of an issue before an administrative body acting within its jurisdiction.
The appellee further contends that this court should state in its opinion for the guidance of the Commission, whether or not the formula used by the Commission in determining the financial factors to be weighed on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bolerjack v. Forsythe
... ... See Public Service Commission v. Chicago, Indianapolis and ... Colonial Bank & Trust Co. (1978), 176 Ind.App. 368, 375 N.E.2d 285, cert ... ...
-
Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Johnson, 272A109
...235 Ind. 70, 131 N.E.2d 308; Public Service Commission of Indiana v. Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co. (1956), 235 Ind. 394, 132 N.E.2d 698, 134 N.E.2d 53. Johnson simply failed to discharge her burden of proof that the ABC decision fell within one or more of the five subdivisions of § 3018, and the......
-
Enservco, Inc. v. Indiana Securities Div.
... ... of the government--not the judiciary." Public Serv. Comm'n v. Chicago, ... Page 421 ... ndianapolis & Louisville Ry. Co. (1956), 235 Ind. 394, 404, 134 N.E.2d 53, 54, ... of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the ... ...
-
Daviess-Martin County Rural Tel. Corp. v. Public Service Commission, DAVIESS-MARTIN
...and not the courts.' Public Service Comm. of Indiana v. Chicago I. and L. Railway Co., 1956, 235 Ind. 394, 404, 405, 132 N.E.2d 698, 134 N.E.2d 53, 54, 55.' In determining the question if the order or findings were within the limits and the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission, we ......