Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation v. Perry

3 Citing cases

  1. Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. Easement Rights On Real Prop. Located in Kanawha Cnty.

    Civil Action 2:23-cv-00646 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 20, 2024)

    Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 626 (6th Cir. 2008) (finding that the magistrate judge did not err in construing a right of way agreement as granting Columbia Gas a fifty-foot easement because it was “reasonably necessary and convenient for the inspection, operation, and maintenance of each of the pipelines”); Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. Perry, 623 F.Supp.2d 409, 413 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (finding that a width of fifty feet “is a necessary and reasonable width for the purpose of maintaining a pipeline” and “this width squares with what other courts have found in similar cases”); Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. Adams, 646 N.E.2d 923, 927 (Ohio 1994) (ordering Defendants to cease interference with the fifty-foot right-of-way permitted by the court).

  2. Adamson v. Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC

    987 F. Supp. 2d 700 (E.D. Va. 2013)   Cited 10 times
    Finding an easement enforceable even though the easement allowed for future change but did not state any specifics or limitations on those possible future changes

    Columbia cites a line of cases holding that a width of fifty feet is required to maintain and operate a single natural gas pipeline. Columbia Gas v. Perry, 623 F.Supp.2d 409, 413 (S.D.N.Y.2008); see also Columbia Gas v. Burke, 768 F.Supp. 1167, 1172–73 (N.D.W.Va.1990). Parrish also indicated that “[i]n the event that repair work cannot be performed while gas continues to flow through ... the pipeline Columbia would also need to construct a temporary bypass line around the area to be repaired. (Parrish Decl. ¶ 15.)

  3. Helena School District #1 v. Yellowstone Pipeline Company

    CV 09-21-H-DWM (D. Mont. Aug. 10, 2010)

    Nonetheless, the materials show that trees and their roots can raise safety concerns. Moreover, case law supports the proposition that a fifty-foot wide easement is not unreasonable. See Columbia Gas Transmission Co., v. Perry, 623 F.Supp.2d 409, 413 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("this width [50 feet] squares with what other courts have found in similar cases."); Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Co., 544 F.3d 618, 626 (6th Cir. 2008) ("[A]lmost every court to construe an easement with similar language as the one here has concluded that a twenty-five foot right of way on both sides of the pipeline was reasonably necessary and convenient.").