{
  "id": 3279984,
  "name": "COLES-MOULTRIE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION et al., Defendants-Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Coles-Moultrie Electric Cooperative v. Illinois Commerce Commission",
  "decision_date": "1979-09-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 15416",
  "first_page": "165",
  "last_page": "167",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "76 Ill. App. 3d 165"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "385 N.E.2d 149",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 Ill. App. 3d 603",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3314687
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/67/0603-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 372,
    "char_count": 5801,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.895,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5237028567976939e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6697562290311134
    },
    "sha256": "75b1b8fd230b1025b4d0c13e642fbdb770bdc5d48febf670a149d9510d6d6344",
    "simhash": "1:cda5ac95ea859479",
    "word_count": 942
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:19:59.772889+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "COLES-MOULTRIE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION et al., Defendants-Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE MILLS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe issue here: What does the term \u201clocations\u201d mean as used in the Electric Suppliers Act?\nThe Illinois Commerce Commission and Central Illinois Public Service Company appeal a decision of the circuit court in administrative review. The central question is which of two electric suppliers \u2014 Coles-Moultrie Electric Cooperative or CIPS \u2014 are entitled to render electrical services under the Electric Supplier Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. Ill 2/3, pars. 401-416) to 19 residences.\nThe Commission opted for CIPS.\nThe circuit court reversed.\nThe lower court was right.\nWe affirm.\nThe relevant facts are undisputed. Since December 10,1955, Richard and Ruth Mae Coen have continuously owned a 70-acre tract in Cumberland County, adjoining Lake Mattoon. Coles-Moultrie has been providing electrical services to two Coen residences on the southern portion of the tract since 1947. On July 2, 1965 (the effective date under the Act), CIPS had one line transversing the northern portion of the property, but was not providing any services.\nIn June or July of 1971, CIPS extended its line to provide services to 19 residences on the property. Coles-Moultrie instituted proceedings with the Commission, claiming it had a right to serve the customers in question.\nOn October 16, 1974, the Commission entered its order finding that since April 15,1972, CIPS had connected 19 trailers or seasonal structures on the property and that two distinct physical areas were involved, one contiguous to the line of CIPS and the other contiguous to the Coles-Moultrie line. It was also determined that section 5 of the Act was inapplicable and that CIPS had the right under section 8 to serve the customers.\nUpon Coles-Moultrie\u2019s complaint in administrative review, the circuit court in an articulate, well-grounded memorandum opinion determined that the Commission\u2019s finding of two contiguous physical areas was against the manifest weight of the evidence. In so doing, the court noted that the evidence clearly illustrated that the entire area was owned by the Coens, had not been platted or subdivided, and was not physically divided by any public road or natural geographic feature.\nOur reading of the Act reveals that one of its express purposes was to avoid duplication of facilities. In order to achieve this end, the Act contemplates a system whereby electric suppliers will enter into agreements to divide the service areas. In passing the Act, however, the legislature was careful to protect the rights of the suppliers as they existed on the effective date of the Act. Section 5 provides:\n\u201cEach electric supplier is entitled, * # \u00b0, to (a) furnish service to customers at locations which it is serving on the effective date of this Act, \u00b0 * (Emphasis ours.) Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. Ill 2/3, par. 405.\nThe quintessence of the instant dispute is the meaning to be given to the term \u201clocations.\u201d The Commission urges a restrictive interpretation which would result in the two Coen residences constituting separate \u201clocations\u201d from the 19 seasonal structures. This limited reading would equate locations with \u201cpoints of delivery,\u201d which is used elsewhere in section 3.12 of the Act.\nThe evidence here clearly establishes that the Coen property constitutes a single location. While ownership of the property is not the conclusive determining factor, the fact that the entire tract is owned by the same individuals is highly persuasive. Additionally, as the circuit court noted, the land was not platted or subdivided nor was it divided by any public road or natural geographic feature.\nIn order to constitute a separate location, there must be some feature of the area in question which would set it apart from the surrounding parcels. A public road, a body of water, or a legal division (such as platting or subdividing the land) all could serve to distinguish one location from the surrounding area. In this case there was none.\nRecently, in Western Illinois Electrical Coop. v. Illinois Commerce Com. (1979), 67 Ill. App. 3d 603, 385 N.E.2d 149, we had an occasion to discuss the relationship between section 5 and section 14 of the Act. Our opinion there clearly indicates that section 5 of the Act is not to be read in a restrictive manner.\nIn an attempt to avoid the application of section 5 to this case, the Commission and CIPS further argue that whenever there is a dispute under the Act, section 8 governs. We cannot agree.\nWhile it is true that section 8 of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. Ill 2/3, par. 408) sets forth criteria for the Commission to consider in resolving a dispute between suppliers over a service area, it cannot be read as dispositive of the right given under section 5 for a supplier to continue to serve locations it was servicing on the effective date of the Act. The Act mandates that the Commission make an initial determination under section 5. Only after it has been determined that neither supplier has a right under section 5 to provide services is the Commission free to consult section 8. It was not permitted to resort to section 8 in the case at bench.\nThe Commission was wrong, the circuit court was correct to reverse, and we affirm.\nAffirmed.\nREARDON, P. J., and CRAVEN, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE MILLS"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Elmer Nafziger, of Nafziger & Otten, of Springfield, and William J. Scott, Attorney General, of Chicago (Hercules F. Bolos, Special Assistant Attorney General, and Thomas J. Russell, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellants.",
      "Sims, Grabb & Bennett, of Mattoon, and Albert J. Cross and Jon W. BeMoss, both of Springfield, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "COLES-MOULTRIE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION et al., Defendants-Appellants.\nFourth District\nNo. 15416\nOpinion filed September 17, 1979.\nElmer Nafziger, of Nafziger & Otten, of Springfield, and William J. Scott, Attorney General, of Chicago (Hercules F. Bolos, Special Assistant Attorney General, and Thomas J. Russell, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellants.\nSims, Grabb & Bennett, of Mattoon, and Albert J. Cross and Jon W. BeMoss, both of Springfield, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0165-01",
  "first_page_order": 187,
  "last_page_order": 189
}