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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT