Sprenger v. Psc
Decision Date | 21 June 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 125 Sept. Term, 2006.,125 Sept. Term, 2006. |
Citation | 400 Md. 1,926 A.2d 238 |
Parties | Paul C. SPRENGER, et al. v. The PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND, et al. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
This case arises from the approval by the Public Service Commission (the Commission) of a plan of Clipper Windpower ("Clipper"), to construct the Allegheny Heights Windpower Facility (the "Facility") in Garrett County, Maryland. Paul C. Sprenger and Rebecca Harvey,1 petitioners, filed an action for declaratory relief in the Circuit Court for Garrett County, asking that court to rescind two Commission orders. The first order approved Clipper's plan to build the Facility, and the second denied a request for rehearing on the approval of the Facility. The Circuit Court for Garrett County denied petitioners' action for declaratory relief, and they appealed to the Court of Special Appeals. In a reported opinion, that court affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court. Sprenger v. Public Service Comm'n, 171 Md. App. 444, 910 A.2d 544 (2006). This Court granted certiorari to consider the following questions:
Sprenger v. Public Service Comm'n, 396 Md. 524, 914 A.2d 768 (2007). We answer the first question in the negative and affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.2
This case is the second of two cases, both challenging the process by which the Facility was approved, to reach this Court. As our decision in this case, the second one, is inexorably linked to the first case, we shall summarize the background of that case before reviewing the facts relevant to the present case. For clarity's sake we will refer to the first case as "Clipper I"3 and, when necessary, we will refer to this case as "Clipper II."
In Clipper I, filed earlier, we summarized the relevant facts as follows:
June 27th filing is also well beyond the thirty-day period during which parties may request rehearing. Sprenger's filings are still further beyond the thirty-day period during which parties may request rehearing.
Order No. 78617 (internal footnotes omitted). Thus, the Commission concluded that Friends was not a `party in interest' under PUC § 3-114 because it had not properly intervened under PUC § 3-106. The Commission also determined that it already had fully considered the issues presented for rehearing in the original proceedings and it was not necessary to readdress them or to address them further.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Norino Props., LLC v. Balsamo
...the facts are taken from the Amended Complaint and undisputed documents attached to the Complaint. See Sprenger v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Md. , 400 Md. 1, 21, 926 A.2d 238 (2007).3 Copies of the Management Agreement and the Affirmation are attached to the Amended Complaint, collectively, as E......
-
Blackstone v. Sharma
...and reasonable inferences drawn from them, in a light most favorable to the non-moving party[.]" Sprenger v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Maryland , 400 Md. 1, 21, 926 A.2d 238 (2007) (quoting Converge Servs. Grp., LLC v. Curran , 383 Md. 462, 475, 860 A.2d 871 (2004) ).DISCUSSIONThe main dispute b......
-
Zimmer-Rubert v. Board of Ed.
...inferences, so viewed, would, if proven, nonetheless fail to afford relief to the plaintiff." Sprenger v. Public Serv. Comm'n of Maryland, 400 Md. 1, 21, 926 A.2d 238 (2007). Thus, our task is confined to determining whether the trial court was legally correct in its decision to dismiss. Id......
-
Dabbs v. Anne Arundel Cnty.
...that the decision to issue a declaratory judgment is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Sprenger v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Maryland , 400 Md. 1, 20, 926 A.2d 238, 249 (2007). Such discretionary matters are "much better decided by the trial judges than by appellate courts, and the......