Table of Contents

ENERGY CASES

• Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold and Easement etc.
• S. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Kempthorne
• Greenwood v. New Hampshire Pub. Util. Comm'n
• In re: Resource Tech. Corp.

ENERGY CASES

U.S. 9th Circuit, May 09, 2008
Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold and Easement etc., No. 06-35660
In an action claiming that plaintiff has lost and is continuing to lose natural gas stored in its Elk Basin Storage Reservoir due to the operation of gas production wells owned by defendants, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the condemnation claim was properly dismissed, but on the ground that it failed to state a claim; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim; and 3) state law claims were properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A natural gas company may not condemn additional property that is not specifically described in its existing certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN), even if the natural gas company seeks to acquire such property in order to operate and maintain an existing storage facility. Read more...

U.S. 10th Circuit, May 12, 2008
S. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Kempthorne, No. 06-4251, 07-4223
In appeals involving appellants' post-judgment motions to intervene in a case affecting their interests in oil and gas leases, the circuit court dismisses one appeal where the district court had yet to rule on their motion to intervene at the time movants filed their appeal. Denial of the other motion to intervene is affirmed on grounds that movants chose to intervene only after the government agency from which they obtained the leases decided not to pursue an appeal, and must await a final decision by the administrative agency in order to have an appealable final decision. Read more...

U.S. 1st Circuit, May 15, 2008
Greenwood v. New Hampshire Pub. Util. Comm'n, No. 07-2322
In a case wherein the district court enjoined a state public utilities commission from enforcing an order purportedly issued under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, the judgment is reversed and matter dismissed where: 1) the suit was barred by the statute of limitations; and 2) even if the statute of limitations had not expired, plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief called upon equitable powers of the federal court, and thus it would be inherently inequitable to allow the action to proceed and allow any relief to be granted. Read more...

U.S. 7th Circuit, May 15, 2008
In re: Resource Tech. Corp., No. 07-1879
In a bankruptcy proceeding in which plaintiffs sought to be assigned a contract bankruptcy debtor had with a third party, bankruptcy court's denial of a motion to compel the trustee to assume the contract and then assign it is affirmed where: 1) the court did not improperly consider whether the contract between the debtor and the third party had expired in order to determine if the trustee could assume the contract without being subject to sanctions under Rule 9011; 2) orders extending the time for the trustee to assume or reject the contract were not a basis to contend that the contract had not expired; 3) third party was not estopped from asserting that the contract had expired; and 4) there was no need for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the contract had expired. Read more...