ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Administrative Law Blogs -> Within the Scope

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Administrative Law

: Within the Scope

What is "Inherently Judicial" is Inherently Difficult

By Eric L. Lipman

ADVERTISEMENTS
As voters were streaming to the polls on the morning of Election Day, the Minnesota Supreme Court was wrestling with its own set of difficult choices: Specifically, what kind of disputes are ?inherently judicial? and, thus, must be resolved by an Article VI court?

Irene Hoffman and her fellow plaintiffs sought contractual damages from Xcel Energy, a provider of electricity service to residential customers in Minnesota, for claimed failures in maintaining the points of connection between the utility?s electricity distribution wires and the homes of the plaintiff customers. The plaintiffs argued that this maintenance was required under the applicable tariff but was not rendered by Xcel Energy.

The District Court denied the utility's motion for judgment on the pleadings, but did certify two questions to the Court of Appeals as important and doubtful; namely: (1) does the ?filed rate doctrine,? which bars judicial challenges to the reasonableness of rates approved by regulatory agencies, bar the plaintiffs? claims; and (2) does the primary jurisdiction doctrine, which requires a court to defer to the responsible agency on issues within the agency?s special expertise, require the court to defer resolution of the services required by the applicable tariffs to the public utilities commission?

In January, a panel of the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the filed-rate doctrine barred court actions against electric utilities which challenge the adequacy of services provided, at certain approved rates, under tariffs that had been earlier-approved by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. The panel did not reach the second certified question concerning the applicability of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.

The oral argument heard by the Supreme Court in this case is chock full of interesting brain teasers ? such as what kind of questions must be presented to courts for resolution as opposed to administrative agencies? This argument is certainly worth a listen.

The underlying decision of the Court of Appeals is accessible here. A video of the Supreme Court oral argument is accessible here.

Full post as published by Within the Scope on November 13, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0023 secs (from cache 11/01/26 00:59:08)