Bornemann v. Connecticut Siting Council
287 Conn. 177, 947 A.2d 302, 2008 Conn. LEXIS 211 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A legal proceeding becomes moot, and a court loses subject matter jurisdiction, when intervening events make it impossible for the court to grant any practical relief to the parties because the central controversy has been resolved.
Facts:
- The Connecticut Light and Power Company operates an electric transmission facility on property owned by the Carl and Barbara Bornemann Family Trust.
- The power company granted Nextel Communications, Inc. (Nextel) permission to install cellular antennas and associated equipment on the facility.
- Nextel petitioned the Connecticut Siting Council (council) for a declaratory ruling that no certificate of environmental compatibility was needed for the project, which the council approved on January 24, 2005.
- Approximately fifteen months later, on April 18, 2006, Carl Bornemann filed a petition with the council, asking it to void its approval of Nextel's project.
- On October 6, 2006, Nextel notified the council that due to a corporate merger, it would not proceed with the construction of the proposed tower and had not begun any construction.
- In its notification, Nextel reserved the right to seek approval for a similar facility in the vicinity in the future.
Procedural Posture:
- Carl Bornemann filed a petition with the Connecticut Siting Council (council), an administrative agency, seeking to void its prior approval of a project for Nextel Communications, Inc.
- EMR Policy Institute, Inc. intervened in the administrative proceeding.
- After Nextel withdrew its project plans, the council vacated its approval and dismissed Bornemann’s petition as moot.
- The plaintiffs (Bornemann and EMR Policy Institute, Inc.) appealed the council's dismissal to the Superior Court (the state's trial court of general jurisdiction).
- The defendants (the council and Nextel) filed motions in the Superior Court to dismiss the appeal, arguing it was moot.
- The Superior Court granted the defendants' motions and dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal as moot.
- The plaintiffs appealed the Superior Court's judgment to the state's intermediate appellate court, and the case was subsequently transferred to the state's highest court for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an appeal from an administrative agency's dismissal of a petition moot when the underlying approval challenged in the petition has been voluntarily vacated by the agency after the project was abandoned by the applicant, thereby preventing a court from granting any practical relief?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the appeal is moot. A case becomes moot when events occur during its pendency that prevent a court from granting any practical relief. In this case, the plaintiffs' primary request was for the council to void its approval of Nextel's petition to build a cellular tower. Before the council could rule on the plaintiffs' petition, Nextel abandoned the project, and the council consequently vacated its approval. This action by the council provided the plaintiffs with the essential relief they sought, as the challenged approval no longer existed. Therefore, no actual controversy remained for the court to resolve, and no practical relief could be granted. The court found no meaningful distinction between the council 'vacating' its approval and the plaintiffs' demand to 'void' it. The plaintiffs' other requests for relief, such as funding for research and attorney's fees, were deemed ancillary to the primary issue and beyond the council's statutory authority to grant.
Analysis:
This decision provides a clear application of the mootness doctrine within the context of administrative agency appeals. It underscores the principle that courts will not adjudicate disputes that have been resolved by the actions of the parties or the agency outside of litigation. The case establishes that once the central object of a legal challenge (here, the construction permit) is eliminated, the entire controversy is extinguished, rendering the appeal moot. This holding limits the ability of litigants to pursue ancillary claims, like attorney's fees or other remedies, once the primary grievance has been resolved, particularly when such claims fall outside the agency's statutory power.
