US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish Cty. 554 U. S. ____
Subscribe to Cases that cite 554 U. S. ____Syllabus
Opinion [Justice Scalia]
Concurrence [Justice Ginsburg]
Dissent [Justice Stevens]
554 U. S. ____ (2008)
MORGAN STANLEY CAPITAL GROUP INC. V. PUBLICUTIL. DIST. NO. 1 OF SNOHOMISH CTY.
554 U. S. ____ (2008)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NOS. 06-1457 AND 06-1462
MORGAN STANLEY CAPITAL GROUP INC., PETITIONER
06–1457 v.
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, et al.
AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER SERVICE CORPORATION, et al., PETITIONERS
06–1462 v.
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, et al.
on writs of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
[June 26, 2008]
Justice Ginsburg, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
Recommending denial of the petition for certiorari in these cases, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission urged that review “would be premature” given “the interlocutory nature of th[e] issues.” Brief for Respondent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in Opposition 22, 25. In this regard, the Commission called our attention to “new measures” it had taken, as well as recent enactments by Congress, bearing on “the evaluation of contracts under Mobile-Sierra.” Id., at 14–16. In view of these developments, the Commission suggested, this Court should await “the better-developed record that would be produced by FER[C] … on remand.” Id., at 22. I agree that the Court would have been better informed had it awaited the Commission’s decision on remand. I think it plain, however, that the Commission erred in the two respects identified by the Court. See ante, at 24–26. I therefore concur in the Court’s judgment and join Part III of the Court’s opinion.
