Court Opinion

ID: 9739810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:21:10.732491+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:14.015328
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion.
Pfaff, J.
Again this case comes before us on appellees’ joint and several motions asking this Court to reconsider its denial of their respective petitions for rehearing, or in the alternative, for the Court on its own motion to correct its error in assuming jurisdiction of this statutory review proceeding. Appellees call to the Court’s attention in said motions that the Court has still failed to rule on Individual Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed December 3, 1962. Said still-pending motion to dismiss challenges the Court’s jurisdiction to review any order of the Public Service Commission of Indiana which is not a final order by any appeal not taken within thirty days thereof, as required by §54-443, Burns’ 1963 Cum. Supp.
By a majority vote of the members present the following entry was made on the 20th of April, 1964: “Motion Dismissed”.
I again dissent to the action taken and the entry made. It is my opinion that appellees’ motion to reconsider should be sustained, or that the Court should correct Its own error by ruling on said motion to dismiss.
The record shows that there has been no hearing held or final order entered by said Commission in the administrative proceeding which is still pending before it. The record also shows that appellants failed to file their appeal within thirty days of the order of which they complain, but instead they attempted to file *319their appeal ninety-eight days after the entry of said order. Since there had been no hearing by the Commission, a petition for rehearing did not lie within the terms of §54-444, Burns’ 1963 Cum. Supp., and appellants’ time for taking their appeal was not extended by the filing of such a motion.
The record shows that individual appellees raised these jurisdictional questions immediately by filing their said motion to dismiss and briefs in support thereof on December 3, 1962. The Court, on February 21, 1963, deferred its ruling on said motion to dismiss until final determination. However, in its decision of February 19, 1964, the majority of this Court reversed the preliminary ruling of said Commission without ruling on said motion to dismiss. This failure to rule on said motion was called to the Court’s attention by appellees by their respective petitions for rehearing filed March 9,1964. In denying said petitions, on April 6, 1964, this Court again failed to rule on said motion to dismiss.
Appellees have again, in their joint and several motions to reconsider or correct, filed April 9, 1964, pointed out the failure of the Court to rule on said motion. I must dissent from the majority’s denial of said motions on April 20, 1964, which denial is tantamount to a refusal to rule on said motions.
In this special statutory review proceeding, this Court is a Court whose jurisdiction is limited to the scope of review prescribed by the Legislature in the statute which creates the action and limits the jurisdiction. If an appellant fails to bring its action within the terms of the statute, no jurisdiction is conferred upon the Court other than to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction.
*320In my opinion the Court must rule upon the jurisdictional motion to dismiss, and on the basis of the record in this proceeding, the only ruling that should be made is to sustain said motion and dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court’s limited statutory review of orders of the Public Service Commission cannot be enlarged by ignoring either the statute, or motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, or the plain facts which make dismissal mandatory. In ignoring the statute, the motion and the facts, it is my belief that the majority opinion is in error, and since the decision exceeds the Court’s jurisdiction, it is further my opinion that the decision is void.
Note.—Reported in 196 N. E. 2d 290. Petition for rehearing denied 197 N. E. 2d 312. Dissenting opinion on motion to reconsider denial of petition for rehearing reported in 197 N. E. 2d 771.