Hanna Mining Co. v. Minnesota Power & Light Co., 739 F.2d 1368 (8th Cir. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
Hanna Mining Co. v. Minnesota Power & Light Co., 739 F.2d 1368 (8th Cir. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 18 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: U.S. West Inc. v. Tristani (ca10, 1999-07-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984 2005 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#8 28 U.S.C. § 1342 cited 6× in this case · 432 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) U.S. West Inc. v. Tristani
10th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
Rec. at 8328 (1934)); Hanna Mining Co. v. Minnesota Power and Light Co., 739 F.2d 1368, 1370 (8th Cir.1984) (“The [Johnson] Act is to be broadly applied to keep challenges to orders affecting rates out of the federal courts.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co.
E.D.N.Y · 1989 · confidence medium
Comm’n, 807 F.2d 28, 32-33 (2d Cir.1986) (“the aim of Congress [with the Johnson Act] was to remove completely the subject of utility rates from the federal courts,” and thus “abolition of jurisdiction in the federal courts ... must [be] read to reach broadly over all jurisdiction in rate cases, including the awarding of money damages”); Hanna Mining Co. v. Minnesota Power & Light Co., 739 F.2d 1368, 1370 (8th Cir.1984) (“The Act is to be broadly applied to keep challenges to orders affecting rates out of the federal courts.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Long Island Lighting Co. v. Cuomo
N.D.N.Y. · 1987 · confidence medium
The Act has been "construed broadly to oust federal courts of jurisdiction over all challenges affecting races.” Miller v. New York State Public Service Comm'n, 807 F.2d 28, 31 (2d Cir.1986); Hanna Mining Co. v. Minnesota Power & Light Co., 739 F.2d 1368, 1370 (8th Cir.1984); Tennyson v. Gas Service Co., 506 F.2d 1135 (10th Cir.1974).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Charles T. Miller v. Nys Public Service Commission and Jamaica Water Company
2d Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Hanna Mining Co. v. Minnesota Power & Light Co., 739 F.2d 1368, 1370 (8th Cir.1984); 17 C.
discussed Cited "see" Taber Partners I v. Insurance Co. of North America
D.P.R. · 1992 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord North Star Hotels v. Mid-City Hotel Associates, 696 F.Supp. 1265 (D.Minn.1988) (citing Hanna Mining Co. v. Minnesota Power & Light Co., 573 F.Supp. 1395 (D.Minn.1983), aff'd, 739 F.2d 1368 (8th Cir.1984) (“when virtually all of the corporate business in conducted in one state but the headquarters and corporate-policymaking functions are located in another, the situs of the corporate business assumes greater importance.”)) Merit contends that guideline three — when the activity of the corporation is passive and the brain of the corporation is in another state, the situs of the corp…
cited Cited "see" Cinema North Corporation, Cross-Appellee v. Plaza at Latham Associates and Hoyt's Cinema Corporation, Cross-Appellants
2d Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hanna Mining Co. v. Minnesota Power & Light Co., 573 F.Supp. 1395, 1398 (D.Minn.1983), aff'd, 739 F.2d 1368 (8th Cir.1984).
discussed Cited "see" North Star Hotels Corp. v. Mid-City Hotel Associates
D. Minnesota · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hanna Mining Co. v. Minnesota Power & Light Co., 573 F.Supp. 1395 (D.Minn.1983), aff'd, 739 F.2d 1368 (8th Cir.1984) (corporation which was created solely to hold and operate an interest in a mining project in Minnesota had its principal place of business in Minnesota and not in the state where its executive and administrative offices are located).
discussed Cited "see" ASSOCIATED PETRO. PROD. v. Treco 3 Rivers Energy
E.D. Mo. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hanna Mining Co. v. Minnesota Power & Light Co., 573 F.Supp. 1395 (D.Minn.1983), aff'd, 739 F.2d 1368 (8th Cir.1984) (where corporation conducted all of its business in Minnesota, and where its executive and administrative offices were located in Ohio, Minnesota was the corporation's principal place of business).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Sidney Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Arizona Corporation Commission
9th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Hanna Mining Co. v. Minnesota Power & Light Co., 739 F.2d 1368, 1370 (8th Cir.1984); Tennyson v. Gas Serv.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hanlin Group, Inc. v. Power Authurity of New York
S.D.N.Y. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Hanna Mining Co. v. Minnesota Power and Light Co., 739 F.2d 1368, 1370 (8th Cir.1984) (“The Act is to be broadly applied to keep challenges to orders affecting rates out of the federal courts.”); Tennyson v. Gas Service Co., 506 F.2d 1135, 1137 (10th Cir.1974) (“The evil sought to be remedied by the Johnson Act was the federal courts’ interference with the states’ own control of their public utility rates.”) Application of the Johnson Act also would require this Court to delve into the procedural aspects of the rate determinations of this case in order to address subsectio…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
HANNA MINING COMPANY, Appellant,
v.
MINNESOTA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, Appellee
83-2625.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Jul 31, 1984.
739 F.2d 1368
John M. Carroll, Debora L. Threedy, Mayer, Brown & Platt, Chicago, 111., Robert H. Magie, III, Donovan, McCarthy, Crassweller & Magie, Duluth, Minn., for appellant., Samuel L. Hanson, R. Scott Davies, Charles B. Rogers, Briggs & Morgan, P.A., Minneapolis, Minn., James R. Habicht, Minnesota Power & Light Co., Duluth, Minn., for appellee.
Ross, Arnold, Fagg.
Cited by 23 opinions  |  Published
Reporter's Syllabus — editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

John M. Carroll, Debora L. Threedy, Mayer, Brown & Platt, Chicago, Ill., Robert H. Magie, III, Donovan, McCarthy, Crassweller & Magie, Duluth, Minn., for appellant.

Samuel L. Hanson, R. Scott Davies, Charles B. Rogers, Briggs & Morgan, P.A., Minneapolis, Minn., James R. Habicht, Minnesota Power & Light Co., Duluth, Minn., for appellee.

Before ROSS, ARNOLD and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

ROSS, Circuit Judge.

Lead Opinion

ROSS, Circuit Judge.

The Hanna Mining Co. (Hanna) brought this action to have the district court[1] declare that a contract, under which Minnesota Power and Light Company (MP & L) has supplied electric power to the Butler Taco-nite Project in Northern Minnesota, was no longer binding. The district court, 573 F.Supp. 1395, dismissed the action on two grounds: first, that the action is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1342 (1976) (the Johnson Act) and, second, that certain other parties were “indispensable” within the meaning of FED.R.CIV.P. 19 and that their joinder would defeat jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.

Facts

Hanna manages the Butler Taconite Project about 15 miles west of Hibbing on Minnesota’s Mesabi Range. In 1974 Hanna, acting as agent for Inland Steel Mining Co. and Itasca Pellet Co., entered into an electric service agreement under which MP & L would annually supply up to 44,700 kilowatts of electricity to the taconite project. The contract provided that a minimum demand of 26,820 kilowatts, or 60% of the maximum, would be billed to and paid by Hanna whether the power was used or not. In 1981, MP & L petitioned the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) for a rate change. The MPUC concluded that the minimum demand provision in the contract was unreasonably preferential and ordered it abrogated. In its place, the MPUC established a 90% minimum payment. Hanna filed this suit after MP & L insisted that the agreement, as amended by the MPUC, continues in force. Hanna seeks damages for amounts allegedly improperly billed and a declaration that the entire electric service agreement is a nullity, without force and effect.

Johnson Act

The Johnson Act of 1934 seeks to foreclose federal court interference with state control over intrastate utility rates. The Act provides:

[*1370] The district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the, operation of, or compliance with, any order affecting rates chargeable by a public utility and made by a State administrative agency or a rate-making body of a State political subdivision, where:

(1) Jurisdiction is based solely on diversity of citizenship or repugnance of the order to the Federal Constitution; and,
(2) The order does not interfere with interstate commerce; and,
(3) The order has been made after reasonable notice and hearing; and,
(4) A plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.

28 U.S.C. § 1342 (1976).

The Act is to be broadly applied to keep challenges to orders affecting rates out of the federal courts. Tennyson v. Gas Serv. Co., 506 F.2d 1135, 1138 (10th Cir.1974); 1A J. MOORE, MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE ¶ 0.206 (2d ed. 1983).

Hanna contends that this case is purely a contract case and does not come within the ambit of the Johnson Act. They claim that it is pure fortuity that the contract term abrogated happened to involve rates. , On the contrary any ruling by a court that Hanna may nullify the contract in the wake of the MPUC order would be an action that “restrain[s] the operation of, or compliance with, any order affecting rates * * *.” 28 U.S.C. § 1342, supra. The MPUC order was a rate action for the purpose of the Johnson Act. The Minnesota Public Utilities Act defines rates as follows:

“Rate” means every compensation, charge, fare, toll, tariff, rental and classification, or any of them, demanded, observed, charged, or collected by any public utility for any service and any rules, regulations, practices, or contracts affecting any such compensation, charge, fare, toll, rental, tariff, or classification.

MINN.STAT.ANN. § 216B.02 (Supp.1984) (emphasis added). It is clear that the minimum payment provision at issue involves a “rate” and is covered by this definition.

The remaining requirements of the Johnson Act are satisfied. Jurisdiction of this case is based solely on diversity of citizenship. The MPUC order does not interfere with interstate commerce and it was made after reasonable notice and hearing. Finally, Hanna may assert its contract claim in state court to receive a plain, speedy and efficient remedy. We hold that the Johnson Act prohibits federal jurisdiction in this case.

Because of our resolution of the Johnson Act issue we neither reach nor discuss the other issue raised by the appellant.

1

The Honorable Miles W. Lord, Chief Judge, United States District Court, District of Minnesota.

Dissent

FAGG, Circuit Judge,

dissenting.

I dissent.

The MPUC order in question simply declares that “[t]he existing minimum billing demand portion of the Butler-MP & L contract is hereby abrogated.” The legal issue at hand concerns the effect of that abrogation on the viability of the electrical service agreement between Hanna and MP & L. Hanna does not challenge the order or MPUC’s asserted statutory power to abrogate a material term of its negotiated power agreement with MP & L. Hanna only questions, as a matter of contract law, if it can be held to an agreement that is now radically different from the one it made.

The MPUC order has triggered, but it is not the subject of, the parties’ dispute. MP & L is clearly mistaken when it argues that Hanna’s action “would require the Court to question and interpret the MPUC’s intent, analyze the reasonableness of the MPUC action and second-guess the MPUC’s public policy choices.” Hanna does not seek to “restrain the operation of, or compliance with,” the MPUC order in this action. Hence, the Johnson Act has no application here.