Court Opinion

ID: 9523333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:39:28.759034+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:04:56.399736
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION
Emmert, J.
In agreeing that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, I would not be understood as believing that the trial court had jurisdiction to enter the temporary injunction it did on June 28, 1951. State ex rel. Pub. Serv. Comm. v. Marion C. Ct. (1951), 230 Ind. 277, 100 N. E. 2d 888, dissenting opinion 230 Ind. 277, 103 N. E. 2d 214. Later this court, speaking by Judge Flanagan in Public Service Comm. v. Ind. Bell. Tel. Co. (1953), 232 Ind. 332, 334, 112 N. E. 2d 751, clearly held that the trial court could not fix utility rates. The same opinion, after quoting Article III of our Constitution,1 stated, “No exception is involved in this case.” If the trial court had no power to fix rates on a permanent injunction, it logically, follows it had no jurisdic*33tion to fix rates on a temporary injunction. However, the majority decision on the temporary injunction became and is the law of the case, and binding on this court in all subsequent appeals involving this controversy. State ex rel. Joint Co. Park Bd. v. Verbarg (1950), 228 Ind. 280, 282, 91 N. E. 2d 916. The temporary injunction obtained its validity by reason of this court deciding, by a four to one vote, that it was valid, and not because it did not violate Article III of our Constitution. But this decision will not be the law of the case when and if other appeals not involving this particular controversy may come before this court. A reexamination of the constitutional issues will then be in order.
In the present appeal now under consideration the trial court independently made its own judicial inquiry into the fair value of the property used and useful in Bell’s intrastate business, what would be a reasonable and just rate of return on such a valuation, and its reasonable intrastate operating expenses. This appears from the trial court’s special finding of facts and conclusions of law. The Commission is not at liberty to disregard or overrule the court’s special finding of facts and conclusions of law. When the matter was returned to the Commission in compliance with our mandate of June 5, 1953, it was the duty of the Commission to fix proper rates. Since this was not done, the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
Note. — Reported in 130 N. E. 2d 467.

. “The powers of the Government are divided into three separate departments; the Legislative, the Executive including the Administrative, and the Judicial; and no person, charged with official duties under one of these departments, shall exercise any of the functions of another, except as in this Constitution expressly provided.” Article III, Constitution of Indiana.