Court Opinion

ID: 9739808
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:21:10.724541+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:14.012350
License: Public Domain

Mote, J.
Although the petition for rehearing filed herein by individual appellees is argumentative, not in proper form and does not comply with the provisions of the Rules of the Supreme Court, particularly Rule 2-22 thereof, instead of dismissing the said motion, we are inclined to and do hereby deny the same, that the said appellees may have an opportunity further to pursue their objections to the decision and opinion rendered herein.
It should be clear that this court by its decision and opinion, other than not requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies in this case alone, before the *312Public Service Commission of Indiana, merely declared that the Public Service Commission of Indiana does not have jurisdiction to consider the matters within 'the • framework- of the complaint or. petition filed with it by said individual appellees, inasmuch as rates,. regulations, etc., as set forth in §54-40.8, Burns’ 1951 Replacement, are not involved.
It follows that the said Public Service Commission is not bound by the decision and opinion in any other area or field; hence, the failure to rule on its motion to dismiss the appeal does not appear to be of a prejudicial nature. Therefore, the motion of the Public Service Commission of Indiana for a ruling on its motion to dismiss the appeal is denied, as is also its motion for a rehearing.
Carson, C. J., Hunter, P. J., Kelley and Ryan, JJ., concur.
Pfaff, J., dissents with opinion.
Cooper and Faulconer, JJ., not participating.