Carren v. Town of Springfield, Vermont
Decision Date | 31 October 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 82-1861,82-1861 |
Citation | 464 U.S. 942,78 L.Ed.2d 322,104 S.Ct. 360 |
Parties | V. Louise McCARREN, et al. v. TOWN OF SPRINGFIELD, VERMONT and Vermont Public Power Supply Authority |
Court | U.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.
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:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
US v. Childress
... ... : 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
-
US v. Lopez, CR-89-0687-MHP.
... ... 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
... ... Town of Eaton, Ind., 910 F.2d 1469, 1471 (7th Cir.1990) ("A due process claim ... ...