Carren v. Town of Springfield, Vermont

Decision Date31 October 1983
Docket NumberNo. 82-1861,82-1861
Citation464 U.S. 942,78 L.Ed.2d 322,104 S.Ct. 360
PartiesV. Louise McCARREN, et al. v. TOWN OF SPRINGFIELD, VERMONT and Vermont Public Power Supply Authority
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.

Justice REHNQUIST, dissenting from denial of certiorari.

The Town of Springfield, Vermont, wishes to construct and operate a hydroelectric generating facility on the neighboring Black River, and in June, 1978, applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a license to do so. FERC has never ruled on this application. In January, 1980, the Town of Cavendish, Vermont, petitioned the Vermont Public Service Board for a declaratory judgment holding that Springfield's proposed project was subject to the provisions of Title 30, § 248, V.S.A., which provide that "No company as defined [herein] . . . may begin site preparation for or construction of an electric generating facility within the state . . . unless the . . . board . . . [issues a certificate of public good.]" Pet. 58a-59a.

Springfield appeared before the Public Service Board and contended that FERC's licensing jurisdiction preempted the authority of the Board, but after briefing and argument the Board ruled that it had jurisdiction under § 248 and forbade Springfield from commencing site preparation until Springfield obtained a certificate of public good.

Although Vermont law afforded Springfield a right of appeal from the Board's decision to the Supreme Court of Vermont, Springfield did not avail itself of this right. Instead, it collaterally attacked the Board's ruling by an action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Board's ruling was null and void on preemptive grounds. The District Court, in a thorough and well-reasoned opinion, canvassed the related issues raised by petitioners as a defense to its proceeding with the respondent's suit: res judicata, abstention, and the principles of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). Rejecting all of them, it ruled in favor of respondents on the merits of the preemption claim, and the Court of Appeals affirmed substantially for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the District Court. I would grant certiorari to review the District Court's refusal to accord any res judicata weight to the determination of the Vermont Public Service Board.

The District Court held that res judicata did not apply, because "the policy against permitting [the Board] to act beyond its jurisdiction outweighs the policy underlying the doctrine of res judicata." Springfield, Vermont v. McCarren, 549 F.Supp. 1134, 1148 (D.Vt.1982). The District Court, relying on our decisions in Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 84 S.Ct. 242, 11 L.Ed.2d 186 (1963), and Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433, 60 S.Ct. 343, 84 L.Ed. 370 (1940), in effect held that where the merits of the issue tendered by the federal plaintiff could result in a conclusion that the federal regulatory scheme ousted the state regulatory scheme, res judicata does not apply. I think this misreads the decisions upon which the District Court relied, and slights our recent decision in Insurance Corporation of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxetes de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 2104 n. 9, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982), where the Court said:

"[a] party that has had an opportunity to litigate the question of subject matter jurisdiction may not, however, reopen that question in a collateral attack upon an adverse judgment. It has long been the rule that principles of res judicata apply to jurisdictional determinations—both subject matter and personal. See Chicot County...

To continue reading

Request your trial
59 cases
  • US v. Childress
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • August 29, 1990
    ... ... : I been changing my number, cause all these people from out of town ... I don't know how they got my number ... call here ... Rayful there? I ... ...
  • U.S. v. LaPorta
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • December 30, 1994
  • US v. Lopez, CR-89-0687-MHP.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • May 24, 1991
    ... ... adopted by Judicial Conference of the United States); Vermont (Cv.Rule 1(IV)); Virginia (Rule 7(I)); Washington (E.D.Rule 1.2(f)(2)); ... ...
  • Patrick v. Staples
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • October 31, 1991
    ... ... Town of Eaton, Ind., 910 F.2d 1469, 1471 (7th Cir.1990) ("A due process claim ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT