Court Opinion

ID: 9465563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 00:50:03.342135+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:14.861511
License: Public Domain

WILLIAM E. DOYLE, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I regret that I am unable to concur fully in the majority opinion.
First, I agree with the dismissal of the Federal Power Commission but my view of why it should be dismissed is that there is no subject matter jurisdiction to justify a ruling in favor of the plaintiff and against the Federal Power Commission. There is no justiciable issue as between the parties.
I would not complain about the majority opinion refusing to take up the issue of primary and secondary jurisdiction if it refrained wholly from deciding this question. I object, however, to the refusal of the majority to rule on the issue as to the Federal Power Commission and at the same time it rules that the land is not subject to the Natural Gas Act. Thus the majority opinion does what it declares that it will not do and so declares in the absence of the Federal Power Commission.
In sum, my general viewpoint is that the use of this quiet title suit as a means of getting out from under the regulation of the Natural Gas Act is wholly inappropriate. If the Natural Gas Act is obviously not applicable, there is an administrative proceeding which is to be employed to get such an adjudication. It should not be determined in this collateral proceeding.