Board of Natural Resources v. Duke Energy Sandersville, LLC

572 S.E.2d 356, 257 Ga. App. 815, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 3002, 2002 Ga. App. LEXIS 1317
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedOctober 9, 2002
DocketA02A1566
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 572 S.E.2d 356 (Board of Natural Resources v. Duke Energy Sandersville, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Board of Natural Resources v. Duke Energy Sandersville, LLC, 572 S.E.2d 356, 257 Ga. App. 815, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 3002, 2002 Ga. App. LEXIS 1317 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

Johnson, Presiding Judge.

The Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources issued an air quality permit, allowing the construction and operation of a power plant, to Duke Energy San-dersville, LLC. The Sierra Club and the Georgia Public Interest Research Group filed an administrative appeal challenging the permit.

Duke then filed a declaratory judgment action in superior court seeking a declaration that a Board of Natural Resources rule which stays permits upon the filing of an administrative appeal does not apply to the construction and operation of its facility. Duke and the Board of Natural Resources each moved for summary judgment. On January 22, 2002, the court granted Duke’s motion and denied the Board’s motion, finding that the stay rule does not apply in this case. The Board has filed the instant appeal from the trial court’s judgment.

In the meantime, Duke, the Environmental Protection Division, the Sierra Club, and the Georgia Public Interest Research Group settled the administrative appeal. Under the settlement, the petition challenging the permit was withdrawn and Duke agreed to modify certain operating conditions contained in the permit. On May 10, 2002, an administrative law judge dismissed that case.

A case is moot if its resolution would amount to a determination of an abstract question that does not arise upon existing facts or [816]*816rights.1 Mootness is a mandatory ground for dismissal of a case.2 In the instant case, the issue of whether Duke’s permit should be stayed by the filing of the administrative appeal is moot because that appeal has been withdrawn and that administrative case has been dismissed. Absent an actual dispute, there is no justiciable controversy for us to review, and we cannot issue a mere advisory opinion.3 Because the question presented by the instant case has become moot, the appeal must be dismissed.4

Decided October 9, 2002. Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Robert S. Bomar, Deputy Attorney General, Isaac Byrd, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Diane L. DeShazo, Assistant Attorney General, Owen, Gleaton, Egan, Jones & Sweeney, David C. Will, Kurt R. Ward, for appellant. McKenna, Long & Aldridge, Barbara H. Gallo, Daniel H. Sherman IV, Bruce P. Brown, Robert M. Wynne, for appellee. Troutman Sanders, Daniel S. Reinhardt, Alston & Bird, Peter M. Degnan, Douglas E. Cloud, Daniel N. Esrey, Robert S. Ukeiley, amici curiae.

Appeal dismissed.

Blackburn, C. J., and Miller, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mack v. Georgia Auto Pawn, Inc.
585 S.E.2d 661 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
572 S.E.2d 356, 257 Ga. App. 815, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 3002, 2002 Ga. App. LEXIS 1317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-natural-resources-v-duke-energy-sandersville-llc-gactapp-2002.