Opinion ID: 1927718
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The utility's principal quarrel goes to the trial court's finding it was without jurisdiction to entertain this cause. This, in turn, depends upon the legislative intent in designating certain counties where decisions of the commission can be heard on judicial review. The utility's argumentand its authorities would be persuasive if we were concerned with original jurisdiction. The determinative question, which the utility persistently ignores, is that the trial court is exercising appellate jurisdiction in reviewing administrative decisions of the commission. The commission is an administrative agency granted original jurisdiction over utility rates and other regulatory matters. Before resort can be had to the courts, § 17A.19(1) provides that administrative procedures before the commission must be exhausted. See Rowen v. LeMars Mutual Insurance Company of Iowa, 230 N.W.2d 905, 909 (Iowa 1975). The right to appeal is purely statutory and is controlled by § 17A.19 of The Code. See Eastern Iowa Light and Power Co-op v. Interstate Power Co., 164 N.W.2d 135, 138 (Iowa 1969); Carmichael v. Iowa State Highway Commission, 156 N.W.2d 332, 335 (Iowa 1968); Cedar Rapids Steel Transportation, Inc. v. Iowa State Commerce Commission, 160 N.W.2d 825, 830 (Iowa 1968); 2 Am.Jur.2d Administrative Law, § 557 p. 366 and § 716 p. 618. The utility points to several of our cases where we have said applications to review administrative proceedings are original, not appellate, proceedings, Danner v. Hass, 257 Iowa 654, 666, 134 N.W.2d 534, 542 (1965); In Re Community School District of Farragut, 250 Iowa 1324, 1328-30, 98 N.W.2d 888, 891 (1959). In the Farragut opinion, we said: We must for the purposes of jurisdiction, and of procedure and pleading, except where the statute specifically outlines these matters, view this `appeal' as merely an original proceeding in the district court to determine the rights of the parties and the legality of the actions of the administrative body. (Emphasis supplied). The apparent conflict between cases holding reviews of administrative decisions are original in nature and those which say they are appellate is explained in Carmichael v. Iowa State Highway Commission, 156 N.W.2d at 334-37, where we held judicial review of administrative decisions is an original proceeding unless the legislature has indicated a contrary intent. In Carmichael we held the legislature made specific provision in Chapter 472 for matters of procedure and pleading, thus coming within the exception noted in Farragut, which limits its holding to situations in which the legislature has not done so. We find § 17A.19(2) is even more detailed in prescribing rules for judicial review of administrative decisions. We are convinced the matter now before us, and the statutes here at issue, deal with appellate, rather than original, jurisdiction. We have held a review from a decision of the Iowa State Commerce Commission is akin to review in workmen's compensation cases. Davenport Water Co. v. Iowa State Commerce Commission, 190 N.W.2d 583, 590-91 (Iowa 1971). Workmen's compensation reviews are appellate in nature. Minnesota Valley Canning Co. v. Rehnblom, 242 Iowa 1112, 1116, 49 N.W.2d 553, 554 (1951). Other cases reaching this conclusion under comparable facts include Brown v. LTV Aerospace Corporation, 394 Mich. 702, 232 N.W.2d 656, 664-65 (1975); Springfield General Osteopathic Hospital v. Industrial Commission, 538 S.W.2d 364, 368 (Mo.App. 1976); Wagner v. North Dakota Board of Barber Examiners, 186 N.W.2d 570, 572, 573 (N.D.1971); and Appeal of Heeren Trucking Co., 75 S.D. 329, 64 N.W.2d 292, 293 (1954). The utility places significance on the use of the word venue in the statute, arguing this demonstrates the legislature was not speaking of jurisdiction at all. We do not agree with this. We believe the statute simply means that when an action is brought in any of the counties as permitted by § 17A.19(2) or by § 490A.13, which we discuss in Division II, the court may transfer the case to one of the other counties where the action could have properly been brought in the first place. We quote the following from the Wagner case, 186 N.W.2d at 572, 573: On an appeal from a determination of an administrative agency the district court does not exercise original jurisdiction vested in it by the constitution. It exercises appellate jurisdiction conferred upon it by statute. Langer v. State, 75 N.D. 435, 28 N.W.2d 523 (1947); Petition of Village Board of Wheatland, 77 N.D. 194, 42 N.W.2d 321 (1950). In order for the district court to acquire jurisdiction of an appeal from an administrative agency, the appeal must be taken to `the district court designated by law, and if none is designated, then to the district court of the county wherein the hearing or part thereof was held.'       The foregoing statutes governing administrative agencies provide a tribunal for the review of the decisions of an administrative agency and the jurisdiction conferred is exclusive. For this reason, the general provisions of the statutes and rules relating to venue and jurisdiction have no application. A review of a decision of an administrative agency may be had only upon compliance with the conditions imposed by the Legislature. 2 Am.Jur.2d, Administrative Law, Sec. 716. We believe this statement from Wagner correctly sets out the rule that the general provisions relating to jurisdiction and venue have no application in considering appeals under § 17A.19(2). We agree with the holding of the trial court that § 17A.19(2), The Code, prescribes conditions and sets procedures which are jurisdictional and with which the utility must comply before invoking relief from the district court for review of the commission's decision. One of these limitations fixes the counties within which review may be had, which we now discuss.