Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Salon Trucking Co. v. Commerce Com.

OPINION FILED MAY 9, 1980.

SALON TRUCKING CO., INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

v.

ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.



APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. ARTHUR L. DUNNE, Judge, presiding. MR. JUSTICE WILSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:

Plaintiff, Salon Trucking Co., Inc., appeals a trial court order affirming an Illinois Commerce Commission (hereafter ICC) order revoking a portion of plaintiff's motor carrier certificate. Plaintiff contends that the ICC acted outside the scope of its authority under the Illinois motor carrier of property law (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 95 1/2, par. 18-100 et seq.) when it revoked a portion of the motor carrier certificate. We affirm the order of the trial court.

On December 16, 1972, plaintiff and Salon Piggyback Service, Inc. (hereafter Piggyback) filed a joint verified application for transfer of plaintiff's certificate of public convenience and necessity as a common carrier with the Motor Carrier of Property Division of the ICC. The certificate authorized plaintiff to perform a transportation service in intrastate commerce within the State of Illinois limited to:

"Waste material, cinders, ashes, garbage, black dirt, excavating material, advertising material, food products, home appliances, household goods and general commodities within a fifty (50) mile radius of 2700 So. Ashland Avenue, Chicago, Illinois and to transport such property to or from any point outside of such authorized area of operation for a shipper or shippers within such area."

Hearings were conducted on the transfer and on May 15, 1974, the ICC entered an order granting a transfer of plaintiff's certificate to Piggyback. In its order, however, the ICC found that plaintiff had abandoned some of its authority and consequently, it reduced the scope of the certificate transferred such that it only authorized the transportation of:

"General commodities * * * within the terminal area of Chicago, Illinois, as defined by the Illinois Motor Carrier of Property Law, and to transport such property to or from any point in Illinois within a Fifty (50) mile radius of Chicago, Illinois, for a shipper within such authorized area of operation." *fn1

On August 19, plaintiff and Piggyback filed a joint verified petition to vacate this order because of their failure to consummate the sales transaction which necessitated transfer of the certificate. The ICC granted the petition on November 6, but did not reinstate the abandoned authority when it returned the certificate to plaintiff.

On December 16, 1974, plaintiff filed a petition for a rehearing on the November 6 order and on December 26, the rehearing was granted. Prior to the actual rehearing, the ICC cited plaintiff to show cause why its certificate should not be revoked for failure to comply with section 18-308 of the Illinois motor carrier of property law (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 95 1/2, par. 18-308), which prohibits the abandonment of any authority without ICC approval. Both the petition for a rehearing and the citation were subsequently heard on a joint record. On August 13, 1975, the ICC found that plaintiff was unable to show that the modified certificate represented anything other than its actual scope of operation and consequently, affirmed the November 6, 1974, order. On August 21, 1975, the order was served on plaintiff and on either September 19 or October 14, it filed a petition for a rehearing. The petition was granted and a hearing was held. On March 24, 1976, the ICC affirmed the August 13, 1975, order. Pursuant to section 68 of the Public Utilities Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 111 2/3, par. 72), plaintiff then filed a complaint in the trial court on May 3, 1976. On April 3, 1979, the trial court affirmed the order of the ICC. This appeal followed.

OPINION

Before reaching the issue raised by plaintiff in this appeal, we must consider defendant's claim that this appeal should be dismissed because of plaintiff's failure to file a timely petition for rehearing on the August 13, 1975, order.

• 1 Section 67 of the Public Utilities Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 111 2/3, par. 71) provides that:

"Within 30 days after the service of any rule or regulation, order or decision of the Commission any party to the action or proceeding may apply for a rehearing in respect to any matter determined in said action or proceeding and specified in the application for rehearing."

Since this 30-day time period is statutory, neither the parties nor the Commission could extend it. (People ex rel. Illinois Highway Transportation Co. v. Biggs (1949), 402 Ill. 401, 84 N.E.2d 372.) Thus, in resolving defendant's claim we merely need to determine whether plaintiff filed its petition for rehearing of the August 13 order within 30 days of the date on which service of the order was made.

The record indicates that the order was served on August 21 and the petition for rehearing was filed 54 days later on October 14. This late filing date would seemingly make plaintiff's petition untimely and would justify dismissal of the appeal. Yet, plaintiff has attached to its reply brief in this case a copy of a petition for rehearing which is apparently authentically stamped as being filed with the ICC's Motor Carrier of Property Division on September 19, 1975. This petition is almost word for word the same petition contained in the record. No explanation has been offered us regarding these remarkably similar petitions. Also, despite defendant's claim and record support *fn2 that plaintiff did not file its petition until October 14, the ICC did conduct a hearing and render a decision on plaintiff's petition. We believe that all of these circumstances would normally warrant some explanation by the parties. However, in light of the lengthy lapse of time and in the interest of judicial economy, we accept the date of filing as September 19, 1975, and therefore, as timely filed.

Plaintiff's sole contention in this case is that the ICC did not have the authority to revoke a portion of its certificate in the manner in which it chose to do so. Plaintiff argues that it is proper to delete authority in a certificate in a transfer proceeding only if the transfer is consummated and remains consummated. It claims that once the order of transfer has been set aside, the deleted authority should be restored and only deleted again for abandonment pursuant to procedures required ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.