Justia Utilities Law Opinion Summaries

In consolidated appeals, plaintiff challenged the district court's conclusions that its property was properly included in the South of Laramie Water and Sewer District ("district") and that the district lawfully issued certain general obligation bonds. Plaintiff also challenged the refusal of the Board of County Commissioners of Albany County ("board") to exclude plaintiff's property from the district. The court affirmed Docket No. S-10-0199 and held that plaintiff was barred from challenging the inclusion of its property in the district and found that the district's proposed general obligation bond issue was not unlawful. In Docket No. S-10-0238, the court answered certified questions related to the Wyoming board of county commissioners' power to remove real property from a water and sewer district and the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim under W.R.C.P. 12(b)(6). The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Claim I under section 12(b)(6) where a motion to dismiss under section 12(b)(6) was an appropriate vehicle in which to raise the issue of the passage of a period of limitations; where Wyo. State. Ann 41-10-107(g) unambiguously forbade any "petition in error [or] other appeal" from a board's resolution establishing a water district, and unambiguously stated that the "organization of the district shall not be directly or collaterally questioned in any suit, action or proceeding" except "an action in the nature of a writ of quo warranto, commenced by the attorney general within thirty (30) days after the resolution..."; and where there was no inherent right to appeal from administrative action.

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, Wayne Hagan and James Joubert, alleging that Joubert was negligently excavating on a backhoe and severed plaintiff's underground fiber-optic cable in violation of the Louisiana Damage Prevention Act, LA. REV. STAT. ANN 40:1749,11 et seq., and that Hagan was vicariously liable because Joubert was acting as his agent at the time. At issue was whether the district court erred when it refused to give the jury plaintiff's proposed instruction on trespass. Also at issue was whether the district court erred when it excluded statements made by Hagan's attorney to plaintiff's employee under Federal Rule of Evidence 408; when it refused to certify plaintiff's witness as an expert; and when it held that defendants were entitled to attorneys' fees and costs. The court certified the first issue where the Louisiana Supreme Court had not previously determined what standard of intent was used for trespass to underground utility cables and the issue was determinative of whether plaintiff was entitled to a new trial on its trespass claim. The court held that the statements made by Hagan's attorney to plaintiff's employer could have been excluded on other grounds given that it was inadmissible hearsay against Joubert and therefore, the court declined to remand for a new trial on this ground. The court also held that the district court did not commit a reversible error where plaintiff did not proffer the substance of plaintiff's witness' excluded testimony. Finally, the court deferred addressing the attorneys' fees issue pending the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision on the first issue.

Plaintiff Great Wolf Lodge of Traverse City, LLC (Lodge) is a water park that sits on former farmland. In 2000, the Lodge annexed a new portion of the former farmland to expand its premises. Defendant Cherryland Electric Cooperative (Cherryland) ran an electric line to the former farm. Cherryland insisted that it had exclusive rights to provide electric service to the Lodge. The Lodge did not protest Cherrylandâs assertion in order to keep its expansion project on track. The new Cherryland contract called for discounted rates. Over the course of the contract, Cherryland unilaterally raised the rates. The Lodge filed suit seeking a refund of excess rates it paid to Cherryland, and to have the ability to choose its own electric service provider. A hearing officer would rule in favor of the Lodge on the rate refund, but would not allow it to choose its own service provider, citing Cherrylandâs âright of first entitlementâ that dated back to when it provided service to the farm. The appellate court reversed the hearing officer. One of the issues on appeal to the Supreme Court was whether Cherrylandâs âright of first entitlementâ stopped when the property ownership changed hands. The Court concluded that the right is not extinguished when ownership changes. The Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court, and reinstated the decision of the hearing officer.