Legal Opinion

C. P. R. R. Co. v. pitts.C. Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 4, 1934PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

This appeal is from a decree restraining defendant from dredging in certain parts of the bed of Little Beaver River which plaintiffs claim to own. The decree was based on the learned court's conclusion that the dredging proposed, and required in the future, would constitute a restrainable trespass on their land.

Little Beaver River flows into the Ohio River from the north, a short distance east of the Ohio state line. In 1911, the federal government, to improve navigation, constructed Dam No. 8 in the Ohio River, at a point in the State of West Virginia 5 miles below the Little Beaver. The dam…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. The Daniel BallSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
  2. Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1872
  3. United States v. CressSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  4. United States v. LynahSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
  5. United States v. Holt State BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1926

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Mountain Properties, Inc. v. Tyler Hill Realty Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  2. Lakeside Park Co. v. ForsmarkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  3. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. v. Maritime Management, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  4. Commonwealth, Department of Environmental Protection v. Espy, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Huntingdon County2007
  5. Commonwealth, Department of Environmental Protection v. Espy, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Huntingdon County2007

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API