Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Guilford Transportation Industries v. Public Utilities Commission

Maine Supreme Judicial Court
746 A.2d 910 (2000)


Facts

Guilford Transportation Industries (Guilford) (defendant) entered into an agreement with Central Maine Power Company (CMP) (plaintiff) that granted CMP the ability to, among other things, lay appurtenances across Guilford’s land. Appurtenances were defined as pipes, poles, wires, and other equipment. The agreement did not contain a definition of wire. CMP was required to pay a fee to Guilford in accordance with a fee schedule based on the voltage of the wire. The fee schedule established the fee at $75 annually for wires carrying between zero and 750 volts. CMP requested to install fiber-optic cable under the agreement, and Guilford refused. Guilford asserted that the term “wire” in the agreement only referred to strands of metal capable of carrying electric current. Fiber-optic cable was made of glass and did not carry electrical current. Another provision of the agreement did refer to appurtenances, which consisted of electric power or communication wires and equipment. CMP requested that an administrative agency, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), resolve the contractual dispute. The PUC granted summary judgment to CMP, and Guilford appealed the decision to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Calkins, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.