We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana recently found that the Due Process Clause of the United
States Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment required an Indiana
municipal water utility to provide an opportunity to interpose a
formal request to be heard before disconnecting utility service.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a
state from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or
property, without the due process of law."
The Court found that an implied contract existed between the
municipality and the utility customer which gave rise to a
protected property interest in continued water service. Because the
customer believed she was in full compliance with her payment
obligations, the municipal utility could not terminate service
"at will." The protected property interest required the
municipality to provide the customer written notice of a procedure
for protesting a proposed termination of utility services as
unjustified before disconnecting the customer. A delinquent card
including only a municipally telephone number was insufficient
notice because it failed to describe the protest procedure. The
protest procedure must provide some meaningful way to be heard
prior to a decision that will affect the customer's interest in
important and substantial ways.
This is the first instance we are aware of in Indiana imposing
such a due process requirement on a municipal utility. The decision
appears to permit class action lawsuits and requests for
attorneys' fees of customers denied this due process.
Municipalities operating utilities should review their rules and
regulations to determine (1) if they give rise to an implied
contract that cannot be terminated at will and (2) if their due
process procedures are adequate.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
On March 30, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a decision imposing certain socio-economic contract requirements on subcontractors operating hospitals associated with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Centers.
The Department of Defense has issued a new instruction that establishes internal DOD policies for detecting, avoiding, and remediating counterfeit parts in the DOD supply chain, and allocates responsibility among various DOD offices and functions for administering or developing those counterfeit prevention policies.
The Supreme Court of the United States has recently issued a unanimous decision upholding citizen-specific limitations in the State of Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act.
In 1997, the Virginia Supreme Court sent a chill down the spines of many companies operating under teaming agreements with a Virginia choice of law provision. In W.J. Schafer Associates, Inc. v. Cordant, Inc., 493 S.E. 2d 514 (Va. 1997), that court held a teaming agreement to be unenforceable on the ground that "agreements to agree in the future" are "too vague and too indefinite to be enforced."
