Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Wiregrass Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. City of Dothan
Citations: 621 So. 2d 969; 1993 Ala. LEXIS 514; 1993 WL 179521Docket: 1920277
Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; May 28, 1993; Alabama; State Supreme Court
Wiregrass Electric Cooperative, Inc. appealed the trial court's denial of attorney fees sought under Ala.Code 1975 §§ 37-14-9(b) and 37-14-37(b) in a dispute with the City of Dothan regarding the right to supply electric service to the Sunbelt Golf Complex. Wiregrass Electric filed suit on March 20, 1992, claiming it was the rightful supplier under the 1984 and 1985 Service Territories for Electric Suppliers Acts, despite Dothan having exercised an option to purchase the servicing facilities in 1984, which had not yet been finalized. The trial court initially ruled in favor of Dothan, allowing it to supply service, but this decision was reversed by the appellate court on August 14, 1992, which determined that Wiregrass Electric retained the right to provide service until Dothan completed the purchase. Upon remand, the trial court ruled in favor of Wiregrass Electric, which then sought attorney fees. However, the trial court denied this request, concluding that Dothan's construction of electrical facilities began only after the trial court's favorable ruling for Dothan, thus not meeting the conditions for fee recovery under the cited statutes. This decision aligns with Alabama's general rule that attorney fees are not recoverable unless there is a contractual or statutory obligation. Wiregrass Electric's argument for fee recovery based on the injunction it sought was not accepted as the referenced statutes do not authorize such fees. An aggrieved electric supplier may seek an injunction in circuit court against another supplier that violates service provisions by constructing facilities without authorization. If the aggrieved supplier identifies that the offending supplier has begun providing service to a location designated for their use, they must notify the offending supplier. If the offending party does not cease service within 45 days, the aggrieved supplier can file a lawsuit to halt the service and seek damages. Successful claims for violations require the offending supplier to reimburse the aggrieved supplier for litigation costs, including attorney fees, as mandated by specific subsections of the law. However, attorney fees can only be recovered under certain conditions, and the trial court is required to award them without discretion. In the reviewed case, Wiregrass Electric sought an injunction against Dothan, which had not started construction or provided service at the time of the request. Consequently, the court determined that the injunction was not authorized under the applicable statutes, and thus attorney fees could not be awarded against Dothan. Wiregrass Electric had previously communicated its intent to serve a specific premise, but Dothan had also indicated its intention to provide service. The court affirmed that the relevant laws did not support Wiregrass Electric's claims for an injunction or attorney fees.