{"id":212,"date":"2012-08-11T16:01:37","date_gmt":"2012-08-11T20:01:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/?p=212"},"modified":"2012-10-31T19:11:39","modified_gmt":"2012-10-31T23:11:39","slug":"appeal-decision-pending","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/2012\/08\/11\/appeal-decision-pending\/","title":{"rendered":"Appeal decision pending"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>There&#8217;s been some interesting legal maneuvering taking place with regard to the appeal of phase one (<a href=\"http:\/\/efile.mpsc.state.mi.us\/efile\/viewcase.php?casenum=16838\">U-16838<\/a>), which <a href=\"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/2012\/08\/07\/new-legal-challenge-to-state-approval-of-line-6b-project-filed\/#more-179\">we wrote about last week<\/a>. Enbridge has filed a reply brief to the appeal and they&#8217;ve also asked to have the appeal dismissed. Counsel for those who filed the appeal has filed a reply to Enbridge&#8217;s reply (I told you it was legal maneuvering). It&#8217;s all pretty interesting stuff for law geeks.<\/p>\n<p>A couple of issues at play involve (a) whether someone can be considered an aggrieved party for purposes of an appeal if that person was not a party to the original case; and (b) whether the law allows appellants to remain anonymous. Enbridge, obviously, says no and no.<\/p>\n<p>We hope the Court of Appeals will disagree with Enbridge on both points, neither of which is directly relevant to real basis of the appeal: whether the <a href=\"http:\/\/efile.mpsc.state.mi.us\/efile\/docs\/16838\/0012.pdf\">MPSC&#8217;s Notice of Hearing<\/a> was defective.<\/p>\n<p>The appeal is probably a long shot, but we&#8217;re remaining hopeful. A decision is likely to come down from the Court of Appeals this week. Stay tuned.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>There&#8217;s been some interesting legal maneuvering taking place with regard to the appeal of phase one (U-16838), which we wrote about last week. Enbridge has filed a reply brief to the appeal and they&#8217;ve also asked to have the appeal dismissed. Counsel for those who filed the appeal has filed a reply to Enbridge&#8217;s reply [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":733,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-212","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal","category-mpsc"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=212"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1115,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212\/revisions\/1115"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/733"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=212"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=212"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=212"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}