Charles R. Otwell, Sr. v. Alabama Power Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that landowners on a lake that a power company had a FERC certificate to use for cooling could not challenge the lake’s water levels because FERC had already considered and rejected their concerns
• noting that, while not obligatory, “[i]t is well established that district courts have exceptionally broad discretion in deciding whether to issue a declaratory judgment”
• concluding that various property owners’ state tort claims regarding the water levels in a lake were barred as “impermissible collateral 14 attack[s]” on a FERC license to a hydroelectric dam company that permitted the company to change the water levels in the lake
• noting “[i]t is well established that district courts have exceptionally broad discretion in deciding whether to issue a declaratory judgment, and the remedy is not obligatory.” (alteration added; citation omitted)
• “Appellants’ claims are inescapably-intertwined with a review of the 2010 License and constitute an impermissible collateral attack on FERC’s final order.”
• “It is well established that district courts have exceptionally broad discretion in deciding whether to issue a declaratory judgment, and the remedy is not obligatory.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).