Reidelberger v. Bi-State Development Agency
| Decision Date | 22 March 1956 |
| Docket Number | BI-STATE,Nos. 33656-33658,s. 33656-33658 |
| Citation | 8 Ill.2d 121,133 N.E.2d 272 |
| Parties | Frank REIDELBERGER, Sr., et al., Appellants, v.DEVELOPMENT AGENCY et al., Appellees. The CITY OF VENICE, Appellant, v.DEVELOPMENT AGENCY et al., Appellees. The PEOPLE of The State of Illinois, Appellants, v.DEVELOPMENT AGENCY et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Fred P. Schuman, State's Attorney, Edwardsville, G. Edmond Cook, Madison and Harry E. Hartman, Granite City, for appellants.
Harry Driemeyer, East St. Louis, J. F. Schlafly, Jr., and George D. Burroughs, Edwardsville (Pope & Driemeyer, East St. Louis, Verlie, Eastman, Schlafly & Godfrey, Alton, and Burroughs, Simpson & Burroughs, Edwardsville, of counsel), for appellees.
Three separate actions were brought in the circuit court of Madison County against the Bi-State Development Agency, each challenging its right to purchase a certain bridge over the Mississippi River between Venice, Illinois, and St. Louis, Missouri, and to lease the same back to certain railroads pursuant to contract. In each case the court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, and the plaintiffs appeal to this court. The cases have been consolidated for consideration here.
The Bi-State Development Agency is a corporation created by a compact between Illinois and Missouri for the purpose, inter alia, of constructing and operating bridges. The commissioners of the Agency entered into an agreement with a group of railroads whereby the Agency was to purchase the 'McKinley Bridge' and lease back to the railroads the railroad facilities of the bridge. Shortly thereafter the State's Attorney of Madison County filed a complaint in quo warranto, asking the court to determine that the compact creating the Agency is unconstitutional and void and that the Agency has no legal existence, or, in the alternative, that the Agency does not have power under the compact to purchase the bridge. A few days later the city of Venice filed suit for a declaratory judgment that the Agency was without power to purchase the bridge and lease it to private railroads. The third suit, brought by certain taxpayers, sought a permanent injunction to obtain essentially the same relief requested in the other actions.
In each case the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, assigning various grounds including lack of jurisdiction of the court. The court found that the validity and meaning of compacts entered into between States and consented to by Congress are Federal questions over which the Federal courts alone have jurisdiction, and the complaints were dismissed. The judgments dismissing the complaints further recited that 'The Court having determined that it is without jurisdiction to hear and determine the matters involved herein, the Court does not attempt to answer or pass upon or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Kellas
-
Hubble v. Bi-State Dev. Agency of Ill.-Mo. Metro. Dist.
...State courts exercise concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts in construing interstate compacts. Reidelberger v. Bi-State Development Agency, 8 Ill.2d 121, 123-24, 133 N.E.2d 272 (1956); accord International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 68 v. Delaware River & Bay Authority, 147 N......
-
Hall v. Riverside Lincoln Mercury-Sales, MERCURY-SALES
...Congress has not demonstrated an intent to reserve exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal courts. (Reidelberger v. Bi-State Development Agency (1956), 8 Ill.2d 121, 124, 133 N.E.2d 272; Ninth Liberty Loan Corp. v. Hardy (1977), 53 Ill.App.3d 601, 605, 11 Ill.Dec. 363, 368 N.E.2d 971). Accord......
-
Abrams v. City of Chicago
...court is not required to determine questions upon which the trial court expressly refused to rule. Reidelberger v. Bi-State Development Agency, 8 Ill.2d 121, 124, 133 N.E.2d 272, 274 (1956). In this case, the circuit court expressly declined to reach the grounds now urged by the City. Moreo......