Legal Opinion

Smith v. Steckman Ridge, LP

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided March 27, 2014No. Civil Case No. 3:09-268PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KIM R. GIBSON, District Judge.

I. Introduction

This matter comes before the Court on allegations of a de facto taking of property under Pennsylvania eminent domain law. Plaintiffs William and Angela Smith argue that Defendant Steckman Ridge, LP, effectuated a defacto taking by storing natural gas under their property. Steckman Ridge argues that an existing oil and gas lease permits these storage activities, and thus no taking has occurred. Steckman Ridge has filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 81), asking the Court to find that the lease is valid as a matter of law.…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  4. Williams v. Borough of West ChesterCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989
  5. Susan Farrell v. Planters Lifesavers Company Nabisco, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Mason v. Range Resources-Appalachia LLCDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2015
  2. William Smith v. Steckman Ridge LPCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2014
  3. A & B Campbell Family v. Chesakpeake Energy CorporationDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2024
  4. A&B Campbell Family LLC, et al. v. Williams Partners, L.P., et al.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API