Court Opinion

ID: 9664089
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:02:21.016953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:01.959366
License: Public Domain

PEDERSON, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree that Minnkota is not entitled to an injunction. That does not mean that, under a different set of circumstances, a collateral attack against a PSC certificate would be permitted.
I do not agree that we should not decide the merits of the questions relating to the rights and obligations under the easement previously granted to Minnkota by the Landowners. This is an action for a declaratory judgment with an incidental prayer for injunctive relief. The trial court heard all of the evidence offered and the arguments made on the question, and concluded that the proposed changes in the transmission line would not result in a greater burden upon the servient estate than was originally contemplated by the parties.
It may be interpreted that the failure of the majority to affirm the trial court’s declaration of rights under the easement means that the question was incorrectly answered or that it should be retried. In my opinion, both of those interpretations would be wrong.