9. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDERS

13.51 General Provision.

It is, of course, a necessary implication from the power of the commission to make orders that the persons affected by such orders are under the duty of obeying and complying with same. In practically all of the states this implication is reinforced by provisions expressly commanding public utilities and their offi.cers, agents, and employes to obey and comply with the commission's orders, and by providing criminal penalties for their failure or refusal so to do.

13.52 Duty of Public Utility to Comply and to Secure Compliance by Employes.

California:

Every public utility shall obey and comply with each and every requirement of every order, decision, direction, rule or regulation made or prescribed by the commission in the matters herein specified, or any other matter in any way relating to or affecting its business as a public utility, and shall do everything necessary or proper in order to secure compliance with and observance of every such order, decision, direction, rule or regulation by all of its officers, agents and employes.—Calif. Gen. Laws, 1920, Act 3775, Sec. 30.

This provision has been enacted also in Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, North Dakota, and Utah, and with substantial similarity in Kansas, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.

10. RESCISSION AND AMENDMENT OF ORDERS

13.53

General Provision.

The power of the commission to modify, alter, amend, or rescind orders upon notice to the public utility affected and an opportunity given to be heard is expressly provided in the statutes of:

The Alabama law provides that any such change in the order of the commission does not affect the legality or validity of any acts done by the public utility before service upon it of the notice of such change.

In the following states provisions are made for the rehearing of cases on application of any party thereto :

13.55 Time Within Which Application Must Be Made.

Of the above states, the application for a rehearing may be made at any time, except as follows: In Arkansas, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, the application must be made within. twenty days after the date of the order; in Pennsylvania, within fifteen days; in Illinois and Ohio, thirty days; in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, and Utah, the application must be made before the effective date of the order. In Washington the application for rehearing may not be made until after the expiration of two years, or if the original order was not appealed from, after the expiration of six months, in either case the application to be made on the grounds of a change in conditions since the date of the order, or on account of an effect of the order which was not contemplated at the time of its entry. The commission, however, may, in its discretion, permit the filing of a petition for rehearing at any time.

13.56 Application for Rehearing as Supersedeas of Order.

In Wyoming the statute provides that the application for rehearing stays the effect of the order until it is granted or denied, but that there may be no second application. In Alabama, Ar

kansas, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee, the application for a rehearing does not operate. to suspend or stay the effect of an order, unless the commission so directs. In New Hampshire the application for a rehearing suspends the effect of the order unless it is granted or denied within ten days. In Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Ohio, and Utah, the laws provide that if the application for a rehearing is made ten days or more before the effective date of the order, it shall be either granted or denied before such effective date, or the order will stand suspended until it is so granted or denied. If the application is made less than ten days before the effective date, and is not granted within twenty days, it may be taken as denied, unless the effective date of the order is extended for the period of the pendency of the application.

13.57 By Whom Application May Be Made.

In New Hampshire and Ohio the application for a rehearing may be made by any party to the action or proceeding, or it may be made by any stockholder or bondholder or other party pecuniarily interested in the public utility affected.

13.58 Matters to Be Considered on Rehearing.·

In Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina, and Utah, the laws provide that the application for a rehearing shall set forth specifically the ground or grounds on which the applicant considers the decision or order to be unreasonable or unlawful, but that on any such rehearing the commission may consider all of the facts, including those arising since the making of the order or decision. In Arkansas, however, only those matters complained of in the application for a rehearing may be considered. In New York the commission may consider all facts, including those arising since the making of the order.

13.59 Time Within Which Rehearings Must Be Decided.

If a rehearing be granted without a suspension of the order involved, the laws of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Ohio, and Utah provide that the commission shall forthwith proceed to hear the matter with all dispatch, and shall determine the same within twenty days after final submission, and if such determination is not made within that time, any party to the rehearing

may consider the order involved as affirmed. The laws of Arkansas, Missouri, New York, and South Carolina provide that the determination of the commission, if a rehearing be granted, upon such rehearing, shall be made within thirty days after the same shall be finally submitted. The law of New Hampshire provides that the application for a rehearing shall be acted upon within ten days by the commission, as above, but no limitation is placed upon the time within which the commission may render a decision on the rehearing. The law of Illinois provides that, in case the application for rehearing is granted, the commission shall proceed as promptly as possible to consider the matter.

13.60. One Rehearing Only.

Illinois:

Only one rehearing shall be granted by the Commission; but this shall not be construed to prevent any party from filing a petition setting up a new and different state of facts after two years, and invoking the action of the Commission thereon.-Ill. Laws of 1921, Act Conc. Pub. Utilities, Sec. 67.

The law of Wyoming also provides that there shall be but one rehearing.

13.61 Rehearing as Condition Precedent to Right of Appeal. California:

No cause of action arising out of any order or decision of the commission shall accrue in any court to any corporation or person unless such corporation or person shall have made, before the effective date of such order or decision, application to the commission for a rehearing.—Calif. Gen. Laws, 1920, Act 3775, Sec. 66.

This provision is contained in the laws of Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina, and Utah. In New Hampshire and Illinois the law provides that no appeal shall be allowed from any decision or order, unless application for rehearing has first been made and acted upon by the commission. It is on this account that the laws of these states, particularly, have assured prompt action upon rehearings by the commission.

XIV

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF COMMISSION'S DECISIONS

1. GENERAL STATEMENT

14.1 How Orders Reviewed.

In several cases the validity of the laws creating and conferring quasi-judicial jurisdiction upon the various commissions have been sustained as to their validity by reason of the provisions giving the courts jurisdiction to review the actions and decisions and orders of the commission. This right of review is exercised, in general, by three different forms of procedure: First, by independent action brought to set aside the order of · the commission complained of; Second, by writ of certiorari or review; and Third, by direct appeal from the commission's decision. It is handled by the courts either by a trial de novo, or by an examination of the record without new evidence.

2. BY INDEPENDENT ACTION AGAINST COMMISSION

14.2 The Wisconsin Method.

Following the example set by Wisconsin the following states have provided for judicial review of orders of the commission by direct action brought in the courts to set aside the order complained of: