Kreutzer v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n
980 N.E.2d 1238
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- ComEd sought a certificate of public convenience and necessity to build a transmission line along Kreutzer Road, crossing petitioners' Kreutzer Road property.
- Hearing (2007–2008) compared Kreutzer Road with three other routes; Kreutzer Road was favored, with a 50-foot easement initially contemplated.
- The October 2008 Commission order granted the certificate and authorized eminent domain, describing Kreutzer Road route and allowing a 175-foot width from the centerline per Appendix 1 and Exhibit B.
- In Kreutzer I (2010), the court reversed the 175-foot easement and remanded to fix description and evidentiary support; the route issue remained unresolved; the remand was deemed limited in scope.
- On remand (2011), ComEd revised the description to a 50-foot right-of-way; petitioners urged reconsideration of economics and evidence under 8-406, and Kane County’s historic landmark designation was revisited; the Commission eventually approved the 50-foot ROW.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of the remand and finality | Kreutzer I remanded to fix easement width, not reopen route merits. | Remand allowed broader reconsideration of route issues under 8-406. | Remand limited; easement issue controlled; route issues not reopened. |
| Adequacy and evidentiary support for 50-foot ROW | The 50-foot ROW is insufficient or not adequately described/evidenced. | Evidence supports a 50-foot ROW adjacent to Kreutzer Road. | Court upheld 50-foot ROW as necessary and adequately supported. |
| Law-of-the-case and forfeiture on 8-406 route merits | Kreutzer I did not waive route merits and preserves review of 8-406. | Petitioners forfeited route-merits on remand. | Law-of-the-case governs; petitioners forfeited route-merits debate. |
| Effect of Kane County historic landmark designation | Kane County designation should influence route analysis under 8-406. | Designation was forfeited and irrelevant to remand scope. | Not reconsidered; designation not dispositive under 8-406 analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kreutzer v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 404 Ill. App. 3d 791 (2010) (reversed 175-foot easement issue; remand narrowed to easement description)
- Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 368 Ill. App. 3d 734 (2006) (jurisdictional decisions may be treated as law of the case; interlocutory rulings reviewed de novo)
- Kinney v. Lindgren, 373 Ill. 415 (1940) (remand without directions requires examining appellate opinion to determine proper proceedings)
- Clemons v. Mechanical Devices Co., 202 Ill. 2d 344 (2002) (Meredith/Clemons approach to interpreting remand directives)
- Turner v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 63 Ill. App. 3d 693 (1978) (law-of-the-case and waiver concepts in successive appeals)
- Brazee II, 333 Ill. App. 3d 43 (2002) (interlocutory status of orders during pendency of appeal; de novo review of prior rulings)
- People v. Cory Corp. v. Fitzgerald, 403 Ill. 409 (1949) (finality of appellate judgments when remanded for further proceedings)