Legal Opinion
Hoffman v. Northern States Power Co.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided January 22, 2008No. A06-2275PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HALBROOKS, Judge.
By certified question pursuant to Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 103.03(i), the district court asks (1) whether the filed-rate doctrine bars respondents’ action and (2) whether the primary-jurisdiction doctrine requires the district court to defer resolution of the services required by the applicable tariffs to the responsible administrative agency. Because respondents’ claim for damages, along with either specific performance or injunctive relief, amounts to an attack on tariffs filed with the appropriate regulatory entity, we answer the first certified question in the…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Keogh v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Central Office Telephone, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Peoples Natural Gas Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Hoffman v. Northern States Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2009
- Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School District, ISD No. 13Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014
- Siewert v. Northern States Power Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2008
- Ben Joseph Burkhart Trust v. Daniel CramerMichigan Court of Appeals · 2017
- Ben Joseph Burkhart Trust v. Daniel CramerMichigan Court of Appeals · 2017
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.