WASHINGTON PUB. POW. SUP. SYS. v. PACIFIC NORTHWEST POW. CO.

Decision Date30 April 1964
Docket NumberNo. 18804.,18804.
PartiesWASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. PACIFIC NORTHWEST POWER COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Reinhardt, Coblens & Stoll, and Norman A. Stoll, Portland, Or., Houghton, Cluck, Coughlin & Schubat, and Jack R. Cluck, Seattle, Wash., for appellant.

Smith, Rives & Rodgers, Allan A. Smith and Hugh Smith, Portland, Or., for appellee.

John J. O'Connell, Atty. Gen. for State of Washington; Timothy R. Malone and Charles B. Roe, Asst. Attys. Gen. for State of Washington, Olympia, Wash., on behalf of amicus curiae State of Washington.

Before ORR, MERRILL and BROWNING, Circuit Judges.

BROWNING, Circuit Judge.

The parties to this appeal are competing applicants before the Federal Power Commission for a license to construct a hydro-electric project on the Snake River between Oregon and Idaho.

Appellant, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of Washington, brought suit under 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2201 and 2202 for a judgment declaring: (1) that appellant was not precluded by Washington law from building such a project outside the boundaries of the state; and (2) that, in any event, a federal license, if granted, would supersede any prohibition or disability arising under state law.

The district court entered judgment declaring: (1) that the laws of Washington did not authorize appellant to construct such facilities outside the boundaries of the state; and (2) that a license issued by the Commission could not confer such capacity or authority upon appellant. Washington Pub. Power Supply Sys. v. Pacific Northwest Power Co., 217 F.Supp. 481 (D.Ore.1963). This appeal followed.

While the appeal was pending here, the Commission denied appellant's application and issued a license to construct the project to appellee. The Commission based its decision on the ground that because a preliminary permit had been issued earlier to appellee under 16 U.S. C.A. § 797(f) (41 Stat. 1065 (1920), as amended), appellee had acquired a prior right to the license by the terms of 16 U.S.C.A. § 798 (41 Stat. 1067 (1920), as amended). Thus it was unnecessary for the Commission to consider the issues raised by the contention that appellant lacked authority under Washington law to construct the project, and the Commission expressly declined to do so. Appellant applied for rehearing. Its application was granted, and the matter remains pending before the Commission.

Appellant has obtained from the district court a declaration as to serious and far-reaching questions of state and federal law, the answers to which are far from clear....

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Board of Ed., Cincinnati v. Department of HEW
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • April 18, 1975
    ...Associates, Inc. v. Rickover, 369 U.S. 111, 82 S.Ct. 580, 7 L.Ed.2d 604 (1962); also see: Washington Public Power Supply System v. Pacific Northwest Power Co., 332 F.2d 87 (10th Cir. 1964); Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newark, While it would be possible in this case to supplement the present recor......
  • Diaz-Fonseca v. Puerto Rico
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • June 16, 2006
    ...[for such pronouncements be] clear, not remote or speculative." El Dia, Inc., 963 F.2d at 494 (quoting Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. v. Pac. Nw. Power Co., 332 F.2d 87, 88 (9th Cir.1964)); see also Eccles, 333 U.S. at 431, 68 S.Ct. 641. Further, the declarations violate the usual rule that t......
  • Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Harrods, Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • October 11, 2002
    ...see also Ernst & Young v. Depositors Econ. Protection Corp., 45 F.3d 530, 535 (1st Cir.1995); Washington Pub. Power Supply Syst. v. Pacific Northwest Power Co., 332 F.2d 87, 88 (9th Cir.1964); Frazier v. Ward, 426 F.Supp. 1354, 1361 138. See 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). 139. Wycoff, 344 U.S. at 241......
  • El Dia, Inc. v. Hernandez Colon
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • March 3, 1992
    ...judgments should not be pronounced "unless the need is clear, not remote or speculative." Washington Pub. Power Supply Sys. v. Pacific Northwest Power Co., 332 F.2d 87, 88 (9th Cir.1964). In exercising this bounded discretion, a court, once satisfied that the constitutional prerequisites of......
  • 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