Town of Huntington v. Long Island Power Authority

Second Circuit

Town of Huntington v. Long Island Power Authority

11 F. App'x 24

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 1, 2001

DocketDocket No. 00-9201

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 F. App'x 24 (Town of Huntington v. Long Island Power Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Town of Huntington v. Long Island Power Authority, 11 F. App'x 24 (2d Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of said district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiffs-appellants the Town of Huntington, New York, and the Town of Babylon, New York (collectively “the Towns”), appeal an October 27, 2000 judgment of the district court that dismissed the Town’s suit against defendants-appellees the Long Island Lighting Co ., the Long Island Power Authority, and various other related entities and officials (collectively “LILCO”). The Towns asserted, inter alia, claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of (1) the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of procedural due process, (2) the Contract Clause of Article I, § 10 of the Constitution, and (3) the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The district court dismissed the action based on the filed-rate doctrine because it reasoned that the “plaintiffs bring suit as rate payers challenging the use made of the rate-payments that they made.” Dist.Ct.Op. at 11.

For substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s August 14, 2000 opinion and order dismissing the case and its October 10, 2000 opinion and order denying the Towns’ motion for reconsideration, the judgment of the distinct court is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs to be borne by defendants-appellees.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of said district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiffs-appellants the Town of Huntington, New York, and the Town of Babylon, New York (collectively “the Towns”), appeal an October 27, 2000 judgment of the district court that dismissed the Town’s suit against defendants-appellees the Long Island Lighting Co ., the Long Island Power Authority, and various other related entities and officials (collectively “LILCO”). The Towns asserted, inter alia, claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of (1) the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of procedural due process, (2) the Contract Clause of Article I, § 10 of the Constitution, and (3) the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The district court dismissed the action based on the filed-rate doctrine because it reasoned that the “plaintiffs bring suit as rate payers challenging the use made of the rate-payments that they made.” Dist.Ct.Op. at 11.

For substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s August 14, 2000 opinion and order dismissing the case and its October 10, 2000 opinion and order denying the Towns’ motion for reconsideration, the judgment of the distinct court is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs to be borne by defendants-appellees.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 F. App'x 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-huntington-v-long-island-power-authority-ca2-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack