Legal Opinion · Dissent

David v. Philadelphia Electric Co.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 12, 1988No. Appeal, 2845 C. D. 1986Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Judge Doyle:

I respectfully dissent and would affirm the judgment of the trial court.

There is no question that this is a matter of first impression. The majority would conclude, using the language of our Supreme Court in Kauffman v. Griesemer, 26 Pa. 407 (1856), that a downstream riparian owner may enjoin any discharge of water which does not naturally originate, flow in, or fall upon the upstream property owners land. The concurring opinion, would allow the reasonable discharge of imported waters into the stream bed, if the imported waters were used, or treated in some…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Kauffman v. GriesemerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1856
  2. Chamberlin v. CiaffoniSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
  3. Dimmock v. City of New LondonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1968
  4. Laform v. Bethlehem TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  5. Sullivan v. County of BucksCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

3 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