Opinion ID: 1439303
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The City raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction in the Circuit Court for Calvert County to entertain the appeal, and it alone pursues the issue here. The controlling statutory provision is Article 78, § 91: Proceedings for review under § 90 of this article shall be instituted in the circuit court for any county within which operations are carried on by the public service company involved, or in any equity court in Baltimore City. (Emphasis supplied.) As revealed in the proceedings below, in 1973 the Company had in Calvert County approximately 2,100 electric customers, which amounted to 0.283% of all its electric customers, and no gas or steam customers. These customers produced $650,000 in revenues, about 0.184% of its electric revenues ($353,432,000) and 0.137% of its total revenues ($473,622,000). The Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant had not been completed as of March 31, 1974, but over $545 million had been expended for its construction. The City urges that the Company is not carrying on operations in Calvert County because it does a minimal amount of business, compared with its total operations, in Calvert County. It relies upon Liller v. Logsdon, 261 Md. 367, 370, 275 A.2d 469, 471 (1971) where, citing from Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1581 (unabridged ed. 1961), we defined the term operations as the whole process of planning for and operating a business or other organized unit. Since the Company's operations in Calvert County were so miniscule in relationship to its entire operations, the City contends that the lower court had no jurisdiction in the case. We think the City's argument is frivolous. In construing § 91, we should give effect to the legislative intent as expressed by the words used. Scoville Serv., Inc. v. Comptroller, 269 Md. 390, 306 A.2d 534 (1973); Giant of Md. v. State's Attorney, 267 Md. 501, 298 A.2d 427 (1973). The statute requires that operations be carried on in the county in which review is sought, not that a substantial part of the operations be carried on in that county. In view of the evidence, it is patent that the Company carries on operations in Calvert County and that the Circuit Court for Calvert County had jurisdiction to hear the Company's appeal. [6] Decree of Circuit Court for Calvert County vacated; order No. 60684 of the Public Service Commission in case No. 6700 affirmed as to all issues decided by this opinion; costs to be paid by appellee.