Harter v. Missouri Public Service Commission
361 S.W.3d 52
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Harter, an attorney, challenged Laclede Gas Company's billing disputes with the PSC in a PSC proceeding.
- PSC held an evidentiary hearing on July 8, 2010 and issued a Report and Order on November 3, 2010, effective November 13, 2010.
- Harter filed an Application for Rehearing on November 15, 2010; PSC denied it on December 1, 2010 as untimely because it was after the order’s effective date.
- Harter then filed a petition for writ of review under §386.510 in the trial court on January 3, 2011; the trial court issued a writ February 10, 2011.
- PSC moved to dismiss the writ, arguing lack of jurisdiction since rehearing was not timely; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed with prejudice on March 30, 2011.
- On appeal, the Western District affirmed, holding the PSC correctly denied rehearing and the trial court lacked authority to review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of rehearing under §386.500.2 | Harter argues statute allows rehearing despite timing; MAPA may apply. | PSC argues rehearing untimely before effective date, depriving jurisdiction. | Untimely rehearing before the effective date. No jurisdiction for review. |
| Rule 44.01 applicability to time computation | Rule 44.01(a) governs time computation for rehearing deadlines. | Rule 44.01 does not apply to PSC proceedings; statute controls. | Rule 44.01 does not apply; timing governed by §386.500.2. |
| PSC authority to set a shorter effective date | PSC cannot shorten the 30-day effective period; must follow statute. | PSC may fix a reasonable time in lieu of 30 days; ten days was reasonable. | PSC had authority to set a shorter, reasonable effective date; ten days was permissible. |
| Due process concerns | Shortened deadline deprived notice/hearing rights for rehearing. | Notice/hearing occurred; statutory framework provides review rights. | Due process satisfied; failure to timely file was the fault of Harter, not process. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Office of Pub. Counsel v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 326 S.W.3d 868 (Mo.App. W.D. 2010) (review framework and de novo standard on appeal of trial court ruling)
- State ex rel. Alton R.R. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 155 S.W.2d 149 (Mo. 1941) (PSC may set a shorter effective date than 30 days)
- State ex rel. Kansas City, Independence & Fairmount Stage Lines Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 63 S.W.2d 88 (Mo. 1933) (PSC may fix shorter, reasonable time in lieu of 30 days)
- State ex rel. Office of Pub. Counsel v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 236 S.W.3d 632 (Mo. banc 2007) (one-hour deadline unreasonable; PSC discretion reasonable time in lieu of 30 days)
- State ex rel. Praxair, Inc. v. Mo. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 344 S.W.3d 178 (Mo. banc 2011) (MAPA fills gaps not addressed by PSC statutes)
- State ex rel. A & G Commercial Trucking v. Dir. of the Manufactured Hous. & Modular Units Prog. of the PSC, 168 S.W.3d 680 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (MAPA preemption of general MAPA review provisions when specific statute exists)
- Hundley v. Wenzel, 59 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (exclusive of MAPA review where PSC statute provides)
- J.C.W. ex rel. Webb v. Wyciskalla, 275 S.W.3d 249 (Mo. banc 2009) (distinct notions of jurisdiction vs. statutory limits on relief)
- State ex rel. City of Springfield v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 812 S.W.2d 827 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991) (due process in administrative procedures context)
- State ex rel. Alton Railroad Co., 155 S.W.2d 151 (Mo. 1941) (ten-day effective date previously upheld)