Legal Opinion · Dissent

Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. v. Maritime Management, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 20, 1997No. 00142Published

1DissentKelly, Judge

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s affirmance of the trial court’s finding that the body of water that existed before the creation of Lake Wallenpaupack by Pennsylvania Power & Light Company (PP & L) in 1927 was never at any time a navigable body of water. Therefore, I would hold that PP & L’s ownership of the land beneath Lake Wal-lenpaupack does not afford any right superi- or to that of the public to use the waterway. Thus, PP & L does not have the right to prohibit Maritime Management, Inc. from utilizing its validly issued liquor license to sell alcoholic beverages aboard its…

2Cases cited45 opinions

  1. The Daniel BallSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
  2. United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
  3. Arizona v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  4. United States v. Holt State BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  5. The MontelloSupreme Court of the United States · 1874

40 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