Legal Opinion

Tolliver v. Pittsburgh-Consolidation Coal Co.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Decided May 11, 1956PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

' CAMMACK, Judge.

The appellants, as owners of an undivided interest in the surface of lands being mined by the appellee, instituted this action to enjoin an alleged nuisance, namely, the operation of the appellee’s coal tipple and washing plant. They sought. also to recover damages allegedly resulting to their surface rights from that operation. The trial judge dismissed the complaint on the appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Apparently, he concluded that the broad language of the appellee’s mineral deed authorized the operation in question.

The appellants urge a reversal on the grounds…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Shields v. BarrowSupreme Court of the United States · 1855
  2. Stewart v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1855
  3. Pike-Floyd Coal Co. v. NunneryCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1929
  4. Inland Steel Co. v. IsaacsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1940
  5. Watts v. Carrs Fork Coal CompanyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1955

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. McDonald's Corp. v. SmargonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1975
  2. Blue Diamond Coal Company v. NeaceCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1960
  3. Kentland-Elkhorn Coal Company v. CharlesCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1974
  4. Kentland-Elkhorn Coal Company v. CharlesCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1974

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

Powered by the Exa API