Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Covol Fuels No. 4, LLC v. Pinnacle Mining Company, LLC

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Decided March 3, 2015No. 14-1395Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partFloyd, Circuit Judge

In my view, nothing in the Agreement’s plain language requires Pinnacle to pump water to facilitate Covol’s coal operations. In holding otherwise, I believe the majority conjures an ambiguity where there is none, erring in two fundamental respects. Accordingly, except in regard to Part III.B of the majority’s opinion, I respectfully dissent.

First, the majority tacitly attributes a meaning to “right-of-way” that is anything but “plain and ordinary.” Berry v. Mountain Air Prop. Owners Ass’n, No. 13-1324, 2014 WL 5312274, at *3 (W.Va. Oct. 17, 2014). A “right-of-way” is “[t]he right to pass…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Faith United Methodist Church & Cemetery of Terra Alta v. MorganWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2013
  2. Maddy v. MaddyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Greiner v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.District Court, S.D. West Virginia · 1999

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

Powered by the Exa API