469 U.S. 1306 (1984), A-379, Northern California Power Agency v. Grace Geothermal Corp.
|Docket Nº:||No. A-379|
|Citation:||469 U.S. 1306, 105 S.Ct. 459, 83 L.Ed.2d 388|
|Party Name:||Northern California Power Agency v. Grace Geothermal Corp.|
|Case Date:||December 07, 1984|
|Court:||United States Supreme Court|
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
An application to stay the Federal District Court's order granting a preliminary injunction against applicant's commencing state court eminent domain proceedings under California law to condemn certain geothermal leases obtained by respondent from the Federal Government, is denied. Although the District Court has not, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), provided any reviewing court with the benefit of its views as to the nature of the irreparable injury that respondent might suffer or the inadequacy of the remedy at law, or any other requirement for an injunction, appeal as of right lies from the District Court to the Court of Appeals. Moreover, it cannot be said with any certainty that this Court would grant certiorari to review a Court of Appeals judgment approving the District Court's action, or that the District Court may not enter appropriate findings in support of an injunction before the case is heard in the Court of Appeals.
REHNQUIST, J., lead opinion
[105 S.Ct. 459] JUSTICE REHNQUIST, Circuit Justice.
Applicant asks that I stay an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granting a preliminary injunction against its commencing eminent domain proceedings in state court against certain leasehold interests held by respondent. On the basis of the papers submitted to me by both parties, it seems to me that the applicant has made out a strong case for the proposition that respondent had a plain and adequate remedy at law through the process afforded under California's eminent domain laws. A party seeking an injunction from a federal court must invariably show that it does not have an adequate remedy at law. See Hillsborough v. Cromwell, 326 U.S. 620, 622 (1946). Nevertheless, for the reasons that follow, I have decided not to grant the application for stay.
Respondent contends that it will suffer irreparable harm
by applicant, an order would issue for immediate possession of the property in question. It claims that loss of possession would mean loss of its only source of revenue, and would lead to immediate financial complications. On the merits, respondent's contention is that...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP