Legal Opinion · Dissent
In re Applications of Enbridge Energy, Ltd.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided June 3, 2019No. A18-1283; A18-1291; A18-1292Published
1Dissent
CONNOLLY, Judge (dissenting)
I respectfully dissent. I do not believe that the decision of respondent Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (commission) was arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence. Relator Honor the Earth (HTE) contends that the final environmental-impact statement (FEIS) failed to consider the effect of oil spills on the Lake Superior watershed. HTE is wrong. It did.
We review the commission's decision under the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act (MAPA) to determine whether
the substantial rights of the [relators] may have been prejudiced because the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Greater Boston Television Corp. v. Federal Communications CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1970
- Reserve Mining Co. v. HerbstSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Lathan v. BrinegarCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974
- Coalition on Sensible Transportation, Inc. v. Elizabeth DoleCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1987
- No Power Line, Inc. v. Minnesota Environmental Quality CouncilSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.