ILNews

Circuit Court rules utility contract falls in state jurisdiction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A dispute between a power generator and an electricity wholesaler should be heard in the state court, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled after finding the central issues did not arise under federal law.

The appeal involves two Indiana organizations and the issue of whether a claim for breach of a long-term requirements contract for wholesale electricity is governed by federal law or state law.

Since entering into a contract in 1977, Northeastern has purchased electricity from Wabash Valley. Under terms of a contract, Northeastern agreed to pay for the electricity at rates set by the Wabash Valley board of directors, subject to approval from what is now the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.  

When Wabash Valley took action in 2004 to transfer regulation of its rates from the IURC to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Northeastern filed suit in Indiana state court seeking a declaration judgment that Wabash materially breached the original contract.

Wabash Valley removed the case to federal court on the theory that the claim for breach of contract necessarily arises under the Federal Power Act. Subsequently, the district court granted Wabash Valley’s motion for a preliminary injunction, agreeing that federal jurisdiction exists because Northeastern’s suit raises a question of federal law.

In Northeastern Rural Electric Membership Corp. v. Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc., 12-2037, the Circuit court found the dispute to be a question of state law. It vacated the preliminary junction granted by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana and remanded the case so the District court may remand it to state court.

The Circuit court found Wabash Valley’s alleged breach took place before the filing of a federal tariff which means the complaint is not a federal question.

“For Northeastern to obtain its requested declaratory judgment it must show only that it has a valid contract and that Wabash Valley’s submission to the regulatory jurisdiction of FERC breached on the contract,” wrote Judge David Hamilton.. “Federal law is not at issue in either of these questions. The duty Northeastern claims Wabash Valley breached was not created by federal law or a filed tariff. And Northeastern does not seek to directly alter any duty or liability created by a filed tariff.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT