Sinclair Pipe Line Company v. Archer County, Texas
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
HUTCHESON, Chief Judge.
Alleging that, as the reasonable and necessary cost of accommodating or adjusting its existing pipe lines to widened or relocated rights of way, for which defendant had undertaken with the Highway Commission to acquire the necessary clearances, it had made expenditures, for which it had not been reimbursed, plaintiff brought this suit for a declaratory judgment, that it was entitled to recover them as compensation for property taken without due process of law.
The defendant denying liability, the cause was tried to the court without jury, and the district judge, setting…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Buckeye Pipe Line Company v. Edward M. Keating and Mercantile National Bank of Hammond, as Trustee, and the Town of Highland, Lake County, IndianaCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1956
- Northern Natural Gas Co. v. County of Blue EarthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1951
- City of Wichita Falls v. Real Estate TrustCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1939
- Sinclair Pipe Line Co. v. Archer CountyDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 1956
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Tenneco, Inc. v. MayDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 1974
- Hardin County, Texas v. Trunkline Gas CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1963
- Breithaupt v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1960
- Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion, Texas Attorney General Reports1962