South Alabama Gas District v. Knight
138 So. 3d 971
Ala.2013Background
- Gas District (SAG) formed from Conecuh-Monroe Counties Gas District; statute authorizes gas districts and notice/buy-out process for competition with existing providers.
- SAG began selling LP gas outside member cities in 1999/2001 without giving notice/buy-out as required by §11-50-266, applied via §11-50-399.
- Taxpayer plaintiffs (Knis/Knights and Gwins) sue for injunction and damages alleging tax advantages to SAG under the regulatory scheme, seeking injunctive relief and standing arguments.
- Trial court bifurcated injunctive relief and damages; court held taxpayers lacked standing to challenge SAG’s appliance sales; injunctive relief issued against SAG’s outside-city LP gas sales.
- Fletcher Smith Butane Co., Inc. (Fletcher Smith) admitted asset sale and cessation of LP gas business; court considered mootness and potential lack of live controversy; appellate court ultimately dismisses appeal as moot and directs injunction to be vacated.
- Conclusion: appeal dismissed as moot; Clarke Circuit Court to vacate injunction; separate concurrence discusses standing and statutory issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether taxpayers have standing to challenge SAG actions | Taxpayers have standing to challenge tax advantages affecting their revenues. | SAG argues taxpayers lack standing under governing case law and nexus requirements. | Taxpayers lack standing. |
| Whether Fletcher Smith’s admissions moot the case | Admissions show Fletcher Smith left LP gas business, harming ongoing injunctive relief. | Mootness applies when no live controversy or imminent injury remains for Fletcher Smith. | Moot; case dismissed as to Fletcher Smith and appeal. |
| Whether the case remains justiciable given mootness | Past actions may still warrant injunctive relief to protect public interest. | No live controversy; future speculative injury cannot sustain relief. | Moot; appeal dismissed as moot. |
| Whether LP gas is a ‘manufactured gas’ under the statute, affecting applicability | LP gas potentially falls within manufactured gas, triggering regulatory process. | Whether LP gas is manufactured gas not necessary for decision here. | Not necessary to decide in this appeal. |
| Whether the regulatory scheme provisions (11-50-266 to -270) apply to private action and standing | Owner rights and private enforcement may exist under the statute. | Issues not raised below; private rights not decided here. | Not decisive; mootness controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Henson v. HealthSouth Med. Ctr., Inc., 891 So.2d 863 (Ala.2004) (standing to challenge tax benefits to another taxpayer; nexus not explicit to private injury required)
- Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766 (Ala.1983) (jurisdictional mootness considerations in injunction appeals)
- Underwood v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ., 39 So.3d 120 (Ala.2009) (ripeness and mootness considerations in public-law challenges)
- Case v. Alabama State Bar, 939 So.2d 881 (Ala.2006) (test for mootness after post-judgment events)
- Town of Elmore v. Town of Coosada, 957 So.2d 1096 (Ala.2006) (mootness and public-interest considerations in appeals)