Willison v. Consolidation Coal Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Concurrence
MONTEMURO, JUSTICE,
concurring.
The majority holds that the express language of an oil and gas lease entitles Consol to remove its equipment from a gas well even if the well can still be operated profitably. My review of the lease leads me to conclude that Consol must operate the well until it is no longer profitable to do so. Therefore, as the question of the well’s profitability is a genuine issue of material fact, the grant of Willisons’ motion for summary judgement was improper. Accordingly, I would reverse the order of the trial court, which held that Consol had forfeited its rights under…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hutchison v. Sunbeam Coal Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
- Brown v. HaightSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969
- Hummel v. McFaddenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
- Sunburst Oil & Refining Co. v. CallenderMontana Supreme Court · 1929
- Okmulgee Supply Corp. v. AnthisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1940
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.