{"count":10870,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz05LjU0MTQ0NSZzPTkzNTU1ODMmdD1vJmQ9MjAyNi0xMC0wNyZwPTI%3D&q=ARTIFICIAL+WATERWORKS+OR+STRUCTURES+PRIOR+APPROPRIATION&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9487309/priority-artificial-lift-services-llc-and-ep-energy-ep-company-lp-v/","attorney":"","caseName":"Priority Artificial Lift Services, LLC and EP Energy E&P Company, L.P. v. Michael Chiles","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9487309,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.]","court_id":"txctapp14","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-03-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"14-22-00473-CV","docket_id":68370795,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T13:13:23.147814Z","date_created":"2024-03-24T07:18:30.852405Z","score":{"bm25":30.858133}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1369043,2358161,2987078,4015459,5286025,5287525],"download_url":"https://search.txcourts.gov/RetrieveDocument.aspx?DocId=40839&Index=%5c%5c10%2e20%2e4%2e7%5cTamesIndexes%5ccoa14%5cOpinion","id":9953922,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/03/21/priority_artificial_lift_services_llc_and_ep_energy_ep_company_l.p._v..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T13:13:23.155794Z","date_created":"2024-03-24T07:18:30.887955Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"05bb70e1c737419ce8f7755cb1c6b49f7c60ac55","snippet":"Reversed and Remanded and Majority and Concurring and Dissenting\nOpinions filed March 21, 2024.\n\n\n\n\n                                      In The\n\n                     Fourteenth Court of Appeals\n\n                                NO. 14-22-00473-CV\n\n PRIORITY ARTIFICIAL LIFT SERVICES, LLC AND EP ENERGY E&P\n                  COMPANY, L.P., Appellants\n                                        V.\n\n                          MICHAEL CHILES, Appellee\n\n                     On Appeal from the 281st District","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9953922],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8523298/bank-meridian-na-v-ultra-holdings-llc-in-re-earth-structures-inc/","attorney":"Kristin Burnett Barber, Shane W. Rogers, Johnson, Smith, Hibbard & Wildman, LLP, Spartanburg, SC, for Plaintiff(s)., Kenneth C. Anthony, Jr., Spartanburg, SC, William Walter Wilkins, III, Wilkins Law Firm, LLC, James Henry Cassidy, Greenville, SC, for Defendant(s)., Steven R. Wicker, Spartanburg, SC, pro se.","caseName":"Bank Meridian, N.A. v. Ultra Holdings, LLC (In re Earth Structures, Inc.)","caseNameFull":"In re EARTH STRUCTURES, INC., Debtor(s). Bank Meridian, N.A. SCBT, N.A., as successor in interest to Bank Meridian, Plaintiff(s) v. Ultra Holdings, LLC, Earth Structures, Inc., Steven R. Wicker, Timothy Bailey, First Citizens Bank, The United States of America by and through its Agency the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Defendant(s)","citation":["490 B.R. 199","2013 WL 1332467","2013 Bankr. LEXIS 1301"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8523298,"court":"United States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Carolina","court_citation_string":"Bankr. D.S.C.","court_id":"scb","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2013-03-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Bankruptcy No. 09-03768-HB; Adversary No. 09-80118-HB","docket_id":65784970,"judge":"Burris","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T19:48:55.815952Z","date_created":"2022-11-22T22:38:34.006837Z","score":{"bm25":24.415956}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8495778,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T02:52:26.506964Z","date_created":"2022-11-22T22:38:34.016192Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT STEVEN R. WICKER’S MOTION, VACATING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER AS TO STEVEN R. WICKER ONLY AND REMANDING REMAINING CAUSES OF ACTION, DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS\nHELEN E. BURRIS, Bankruptcy Judge.\nOn appeal, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina granted appellant Steven R. Wicker’s Motion to Remand and denied appellee SCBT, N.A.’s (“SCBT”) M","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8495778],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1259899/scott-v-cascade-structures/","attorney":"Kenneth A. Lee, for appellant., Merrick, Hofstedt & Lindsey, P.S., by Sidney R. Snyder, Jr., for respondent., Bryan P. Harnetiaux and Robert H. Whaley on behalf of Washington Trial Lawyers Association, amici curiae for appellant., George H. Bovingdon on behalf of Washington Association of Defense Counsel, amicus curiae for respondent.","caseName":"Scott v. Cascade Structures","caseNameFull":"Arlene Scott, as Personal Representative, Appellant, v. Cascade Structures, Respondent","citation":["673 P.2d 179","100 Wash. 2d 537"],"citeCount":46,"cluster_id":1259899,"court":"Washington Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Wash.","court_id":"wash","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1983-12-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"48865-7","docket_id":707015,"judge":"Stafford, Utter","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T02:45:47.911197Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T11:40:02.519107Z","score":{"bm25":19.401075}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9588025,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T06:52:41.506492Z","date_created":"2023-08-21T23:29:00.216513Z"},"ordering_key":2,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nUtter, J.\n(dissenting) — I dissent. The comparative fault of decedent was calculated not as a percentage of total fault, but as a percentage of the fault of the parties remaining in the action. Logically, this limited comparative fault figure should be applied not to total damages but to only those damages attributable to the parties remaining in the action. This latter figure is approximated by deduction of a reasonable s","type":"dissent"},{"author_id":6001,"cites":[1142350,1165257,1173475,1173965,1231119,1296225,2117543,2603832,2608753,2618945],"download_url":null,"id":1259899,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T06:24:27.992658Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T05:16:03.997164Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"690d56ec6e3c310e2b884984a88b03d239899690","snippet":"\n100 Wn.2d 537 (1983)\n673 P.2d 179\nARLENE SCOTT, as Personal Representative, Appellant,\nv.\nCASCADE STRUCTURES, Respondent.\nNo. 48865-7.\nThe Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.\nDecember 1, 1983.\nKenneth A. Lee, for appellant.\nMerrick, Hofstedt & Lindsey, P.S., by Sidney R. Snyder, Jr., for respondent.\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9588024,9588025,1259899],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/3974509/in-re-appropriation-for-hwy-purposes-of-lands-of-williams/","attorney":"Mr. William B. Saxbe,  attorney general,  Mr. Harold B. Talbott \nand  Mr. Ralph C. Godwin,  for appellant.\n\n Mr. F. K. Cassel, Mr. Edwin B. Spohn  and  Mr. G. A.  Piacentino,  for appellees.","caseName":"In Re Appropriation for Hwy. Purposes of Lands of Williams","caseNameFull":"In Re Appropriation for Hwy. Purposes of Lands of Williams Et Al.","citation":["239 N.E.2d 412","15 Ohio App. 2d 139","44 Ohio Op. 2d 283","1968 Ohio App. LEXIS 357"],"citeCount":5,"cluster_id":3974509,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1968-08-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"1223","docket_id":3846651,"judge":"Cole, Guernsey, Younger","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T22:15:57.937643Z","date_created":"2016-07-06T06:55:24.327784Z","score":{"bm25":12.156035}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1203580,3572593,3853241,3990174],"download_url":null,"id":3725841,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"/home/mlissner/columbia/opinions/ohio/appellate_court_opinions/documents/71963c155a1dc121.xml","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T09:41:30.250573Z","date_created":"2016-07-06T06:55:24.332424Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c4622a3db853e8ae04f95c87b94a24272f86dec1","snippet":"This is an action for condemnation of land for highway purposes. The land involved is a trapezoid fronting to the west on Marion Street in the village of Waldo, Marion County, Ohio, which, at the time of taking *Page 141 \nand for many years prior thereto, was U.S. Route No. 23. The frontage on this street was 134 feet. On the east the property was bounded by a local street known as Portland Street, with a frontage of 46.93 feet. On the north the land was 8","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"APPEAL: Court of Appeals for Marion County.","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[3725841],"source":"ZU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9468437/in-re-les/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re L.E.S.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2024 Ohio 165"],"citeCount":6,"cluster_id":9468437,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-01-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"C-220430 & C-220436","docket_id":68188043,"judge":"Zayas","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:23:45.526535Z","date_created":"2024-01-24T15:07:12.978341Z","score":{"bm25":12.150247}},"neutralCite":"2024 Ohio 165","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[107480,109768,2812209,3768229,4094478,4181047,4316460,6784916,8127849],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/1/2024/2024-Ohio-165.pdf","id":9926275,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/01/19/in_re_l.e.s..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T23:14:43.146796Z","date_created":"2024-01-24T15:07:12.996317Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3aba1e6ea864c35f81f44a5e2184ed5d4cc06b9f","snippet":"[Cite as In re L.E.S., 2024-Ohio-165.]\n\n\n                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS\n                 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO\n                      HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO\n\n IN RE: L.E.S., E.S., N.S.                :        APPEAL NOS. C-220430\n                                                              C-220436\n                                          :        TRIAL NO. F12-728Z\n\n\n                                          :            O P I N I O N.\n\n\n\n\nAppeals From: Hamilton County ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9926275],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"PARENTAGE — CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CIVIL — DUE PROCESS — EQUAL PROTECTION — R.C. 3111.95(A) — MARRIAGE: The trial court erred in failing to consider whether the parties would have been married at the time of the child(ren)'s conception—absent Ohio's unconstitutional ban on same-sex marriage— before finding that the same-sex consenting partner of a woman subject to nonspousal artificial insemination could not be recognized as a legal parent of the child(ren) under Ohio law."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8885374/newman-v-avco-corporation-aerospace-structures-division/","attorney":"Avon N. Williams, Jr., Richard H. Din-kins, Robert Belton, Nashville, Tenn., Jack Greenberg, Peter Sherwood, New York City, for plaintiffs., Carroll D. Kilgore, Cecil D. Branstetter, William Waller, Nashville, Tenn., Donald A. Banta, Chicago, 111., for defendants.","caseName":"Newman v. Avco Corporation-Aerospace Structures Division","caseNameFull":"Robert F. NEWMAN and Ramsey Alexander, and Raymond L. Dennis and Warner McCreary, Plaintiffs-Intervenors v. AVCO CORPORATION-AEROSPACE STRUCTURES DIVISION, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, and Aero Lodge No. 735, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO","citation":["491 F. Supp. 89"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8885374,"court":"District Court, M.D. Tennessee","court_citation_string":"M.D. Tenn.","court_id":"tnmd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1973-12-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civ. A. Nos. 4335, 5258","docket_id":66151533,"judge":"Morton","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T22:11:43.482433Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T18:29:36.195088Z","score":{"bm25":12.088694}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8871406,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T04:48:40.316708Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T18:29:36.203551Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nMEMORANDUM\nMORTON, Chief Judge.\nThese suits are brought as class actions alleging discriminatory racial practices and policies of the defendants with respect to classification of employees, training, promotions, transfers, working conditions, compensation and terminations pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e — 2000e-15; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985; 28 U.S.C. § 1343(1) and ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8871406],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5344730/rural-water-district-no-1-comanche-county-v-city-of-lawton/","attorney":"Steven M. Harris, Douglas R. Haughey, Doyle, Harris, Davis & Haughey, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiffs/Appellants., Scott D. Meaders, Deputy City Attorney, Lawton, Oklahoma, for Defendant/Appellee.","caseName":"Rural Water District No. 1, Comanche County v. City of Lawton","caseNameFull":"RURAL WATER DISTRICT NO. 1, COMANCHE COUNTY, Oklahoma, an agency and legally constituted authority of the State of Oklahoma Rural Water District No. 2, Comanche County, Oklahoma, an agency and constituted authority of the State of Oklahoma Rural Water District No. 3, Comanche County, Oklahoma, an agency and constituted authority of the State of Oklahoma and Pecan Valley Waterworks Association, L.L.C. v. CITY OF LAWTON, an Oklahoma Municipality","citation":["337 P.3d 103","2014 OK CIV APP 86","2014 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 62","2014 WL 5651895"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":5344730,"court":"Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma","court_citation_string":"Okla. Civ. App.","court_id":"oklacivapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-06-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 111,017","docket_id":61692401,"judge":"Buettner, Hetherington, Joplin","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T04:47:38.950106Z","date_created":"2022-01-06T01:09:59.148598Z","score":{"bm25":11.5215025}},"neutralCite":"2014 OK CIV APP 86","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":5177492,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T00:22:29.311980Z","date_created":"2022-01-06T01:09:59.166802Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nWM. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Vice-Chief Judge.\n{1 This appeal following summary proceedings arises from a dispute about charges assessed by The City of Lawton (City) for water sales to Rural Water District No. 1, Comanche County Water (Comanche-1), Oklahoma, Rural Water District No. 2, Comanche County, Oklahoma (Comanche-2), Rural Water District No. 8, Comanche County, Oklahoma (Comanche-3), and Pecan Valley Waterworks Association,","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5177492],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10642455/robert-dastou-v-kathryn-holmes/","attorney":"","caseName":"Robert Dastou v. Kathryn Holmes","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10642455,"court":"Massachusetts Superior Court","court_citation_string":"Mass. Super. Ct.","court_id":"masssuperct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-07-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2381CV02212","docket_id":70942213,"judge":"Keren Goldenberg","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-28T17:10:01.763766Z","date_created":"2025-07-28T17:10:01.686579Z","score":{"bm25":11.466812}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.socialaw.com/services/slip-opinions/slip-opinion-details/robert-dastou-vs.-kathryn-holmes","id":11109042,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2025/07/16/robert_dastou_v._kathryn_holmes.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-01T18:01:54.748330Z","date_created":"2025-07-28T17:10:01.692536Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"5f022c95d058579869858bfeb263c0ebe5e98856","snippet":"\n\t\t    \n       SUPERIOR COURT \n      \n      ROBERT DASTOU vs. KATHRYN HOLMES\n\n\n        \n            Docket:\n            2381CV02212\n        \n        \n            Dates:\n            -\n        \n            \n            Present:\n            Keren Goldenberg\n        \n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11109042],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10019488/duke-energy-carolinas/","attorney":"","caseName":"Duke Energy Carolinas","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10019488,"court":"Court of Appeals of North Carolina","court_citation_string":"N.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"ncctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-10-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"20-333","docket_id":60656338,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-07-29T15:53:15.658696Z","date_created":"2024-07-29T15:53:15.622233Z","score":{"bm25":10.730319}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[94264,1205513,1209259,1212777,1219632,1227268,1232514,1256366,1277128,1282033,1292910,1303875,1312196,1318496,1320822,1324018,1331044,1332269,1332433,1339162,1372868,1379583,1389965,1403359,1416467,2110201,3007318,3155196,3167118,3644421,3645097,3645543,3653113,3655399,3659332,3662183,4033640,4116012,6694721,6696935,7397588,8897057],"download_url":"http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=40004","id":10486089,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/10/19/duke_energy_carolinas.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T01:17:31.073815Z","date_created":"2024-07-29T15:53:15.624141Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"73ef9a46b8b1ceeb9239e70beeb23a54a4e2008a","snippet":"             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA\n\n                               2021-NCCOA-558\n\n                                 No. COA20-333\n\n                              Filed 19 October 2021\n\nCatawba County, No. 17 CVS 194\n\nDUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC, Plaintiff,\n\n            v.\n\nMICHAEL L. KISER, ROBIN              S.   KISER,   and   SUNSET   KEYS,    LLC,\nDefendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs,\n\n            v.\n\nTHOMAS E. SCHMITT and KAREN A. SCHMITT, ET AL., Third-Party Defendants.\n\n\n\n ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10486089],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Easement quiet title cloud upon title Federal Energy Regulatory Commission License FERC license fee simple contract easement agreement easement appurtenant easement in gross excessive use Restatement of Property third-party property rights interlocutory appeal summary judgment scope of authority under easement eminent domain navigability navigable waters navigable-in-fact riparian rights public trust doctrine artificial waters"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6242642/us-kingking-llc-v-precision-energy-servs-inc/","attorney":"Corey J. Seel, SBN: 24037465, MehaffyWeber, P.C., One Allen Center, 500 Dallas, Suite 1200, Houston, Texas 77002, David Gaultney, SBN: 07765300, Elana Einhorn, SBN: 06502455, MehaffyWeber, P.C., 823 Congress Avenue, Suite 200, Austin, Texas 78701, for Appellant., Peter Scaff, SBN: 24027837, Mike Seely, SBN: 24054148, Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, 1000 Louisiana, Suite 2000, Houston, Texas 77002-5007, Stacy R. Obenhaus, SBN: 15161570, Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, 1601 Elm Street, Suite 3000, Dallas, Texas 75201, for Appellees.","caseName":"U.S. Kingking, LLC v. Precision Energy Servs., Inc.","caseNameFull":"U.S. KINGKING, LLC v. PRECISION ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Weatherford International Inc., Weatherford US LP, Weatherford Laboratories Inc., and Weatherford Artificial Lift System LLC","citation":["555 S.W.3d 200"],"citeCount":25,"cluster_id":6242642,"court":"Court of Appeals of Texas","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.","court_id":"texapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-06-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"NO. 01–17–00215–CV","docket_id":62618388,"judge":"Higley, Jennings, Keyes","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T08:46:33.123856Z","date_created":"2022-01-21T18:18:26.185683Z","score":{"bm25":10.539521}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[894731,894878,895058,895227,1496364,1533177,1903623,1983523,2187257,2272560,2278854,2831369,3007949,3123044,4189997,4253530,5110884,9513080,9643158,9676700,9705773,9718380,9734453,9766687,9769845,9818731],"download_url":null,"id":6109727,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T18:31:39.492866Z","date_created":"2022-01-21T18:18:26.217096Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nEvelyn V. Keyes, Justice *204In this case arising out of a dispute between a well operator and suppliers of goods and services, the suppliers, appellees Precision Energy Services, Inc., Weatherford International Inc., Weatherford US LP, Weatherford Laboratories Inc., and Weatherford Artificial Lift System LLC (collectively, \"Weatherford\"), sued Amerril Energy, LLC, the ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6109727],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5290697/duke-energy-carolinas/","attorney":"","caseName":"Duke Energy Carolinas","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":5290697,"court":"Court of Appeals of North Carolina","court_citation_string":"N.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"ncctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-10-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"20-333","docket_id":60656338,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T04:33:50.969956Z","date_created":"2021-10-19T12:07:25.234664Z","score":{"bm25":10.464433}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=40004","id":5119243,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"bin/2021/10/19/duke_energy_carolinas.bin","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T23:41:28.527185Z","date_created":"2021-10-19T12:07:25.236601Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a8237b767533c38f2eb388152f99a465e38c4c94","snippet":"             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA\n\n                               2021-NCCOA-558\n\n                                 No. COA20-333\n\n                              Filed 19 October 2021\n\nCatawba County, No. 17 CVS 194\n\nDUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC, Plaintiff,\n\n            v.\n\nMICHAEL L. KISER, ROBIN              S.   KISER,   and   SUNSET   KEYS,    LLC,\nDefendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs,\n\n            v.\n\nTHOMAS E. SCHMITT and KAREN A. SCHMITT, ET AL., Third-Party Defendants.\n\n\n\n ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5119243],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Easement quiet title cloud upon title Federal Energy Regulatory Commission License FERC license fee simple contract easement agreement easement appurtenant easement in gross excessive use Restatement of Property third-party property rights interlocutory appeal summary judgment scope of authority under easement eminent domain navigability navigable waters navigable-in-fact riparian rights public trust doctrine artificial waters"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10318210/caribbean-sun-airlines-inc-v-halevi-enterprises-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Caribbean Sun Airlines Inc. v. Halevi Enterprises LLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10318210,"court":"Supreme Court of Delaware","court_citation_string":"Del.","court_id":"del","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-01-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"199, 2024","docket_id":69561821,"judge":"Traynor J.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-21T20:03:44.971656Z","date_created":"2025-01-21T20:03:44.914611Z","score":{"bm25":10.379338}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1469417,2383782,4968516],"download_url":"http://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=374310","id":10784798,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/01/21/caribbean_sun_airlines_inc._v._halevi_enterprises_llc_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T19:02:03.708548Z","date_created":"2025-01-21T20:03:44.921419Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"402a8ae6351862c900a9f483f6b57d91fea37522","snippet":"        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE\n\nCARIBBEAN SUN AIRLINES INC.           §\nd/b/a/ WORLD ATLANTIC                 §\nAIRLINES INC., and MIAMI AIR          §   No. 199, 2024\nINTERNATIONAL INC.,                   §\n                                      §   Court Below: Superior Court\n     Defendants Below,                §   of the State of Delaware\n     Appellants,                      §\n                                      §   C.A. No. N21J-04427\n           v.                 ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10784798],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4888420/south-carolina-coastal-conservation-league-v-scdhec/","attorney":"","caseName":"South Carolina Coastal Conservation League v. SCDHEC","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4888420,"court":"Supreme Court of South Carolina","court_citation_string":"S.C.","court_id":"sc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-06-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2019-000074","docket_id":59954690,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-03T15:05:23.547758Z","date_created":"2021-06-02T15:17:12.499305Z","score":{"bm25":10.312112}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1347589,1349151,1402903],"download_url":"http://www.sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/28031.pdf","id":4692199,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/06/02/south_carolina_coastal_conservation_league_v._scdhec.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-05T22:05:24.470087Z","date_created":"2021-06-02T15:17:12.501122Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"cade00c55b292781babcdd9bfd8e23872dfdad2f","snippet":"                      THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA\n                           In The Supreme Court\n\n            South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, Appellant,\n\n            v.\n\n            South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental\n            Control, KDP, II, LLC, and KRA Development, LP,\n            Respondents.\n\n            Appellate Case No. 2019-000074\n\n\n\n                     Appeal from the Administrative Law Court\n                 Ralph King Anderson, III, Administrative","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4692199],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"This appeal concerns the ALC's decision to uphold DHEC's issuance of four permits and a certification necessary to construct a 2,380-foot steel sheet pile wall designed to combat the erosive forces of the Kiawah River along Captain Sam's Spit. While the Coastal Conservation League (League) raises numerous issues on appeal, we hold the ALC erred in three respects: in accepting DHEC's narrow, formulaic interpretation of whether a permit that indisputably impacts a critical area warrants the more stringent review normally accorded to such structures in relying on the protection of Beachwalker Park to justify the entire wall and, in determining the public will benefit from the wall based on purely economic reasons. Accordingly, we reverse."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10318128/caribbean-sun-airlines-inc-v-halevi-enterprises-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Caribbean Sun Airlines Inc. v. Halevi Enterprises LLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10318128,"court":"Supreme Court of Delaware","court_citation_string":"Del.","court_id":"del","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-01-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"199, 2024","docket_id":69561821,"judge":"Traynor J.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-21T18:03:53.200898Z","date_created":"2025-01-21T18:03:53.142689Z","score":{"bm25":10.282019}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1469417,2383782,4968516],"download_url":"http://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=374300","id":10784716,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/01/21/caribbean_sun_airlines_inc._v._halevi_enterprises_llc.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T19:02:05.894216Z","date_created":"2025-01-21T18:03:53.150642Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"604feaa8b16bcdd4dd59a51233362d681dd2ce4e","snippet":"        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE\n\nCARIBBEAN SUN AIRLINES INC.           §\nd/b/a/ WORLD ATLANTIC                 §\nAIRLINES INC., and MIAMI AIR          §   No. 199, 2024\nINTERNATIONAL INC.,                   §\n                                      §   Court Below: Superior Court\n     Defendants Below,                §   of the State of Delaware\n     Appellants,                      §\n                                      §   C.A. No. N21J-04427\n           v.                 ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10784716],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4869616/cumberland-advisory-group-llc-v-martha-arnita-lee/","attorney":"","caseName":"Cumberland Advisory Group, LLC v. Martha Arnita Lee","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4869616,"court":"Court of Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Ct. App.","court_id":"tennctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-03-31","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"M2019-02072-COA-R3-CV","docket_id":59780589,"judge":"Presiding Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:46:13.709252Z","date_created":"2021-03-31T20:18:08.257201Z","score":{"bm25":10.137209}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8266,"cites":[1074264,1074938,1369151,1449376,1714539,1724295,2457411],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/cumberlandadvisoryv.lee_.opn_.pdf","id":4673395,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/03/31/cumberland_advisory_group_llc_v._martha_arnita_lee.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-28T21:27:37.000016Z","date_created":"2021-03-31T20:18:08.263843Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"051fe9159281c204bf5f83f764545f5af68228a7","snippet":"                                                                                          03/31/2021\n               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                           AT NASHVILLE\n                                February 4, 2021 Session\n\nCUMBERLAND ADVISORY GROUP, LLC V. MARTHA ARNITA LEE ET\n                       AL.\n\n                Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County\n                   No. 16-635-II    Anne C. Martin, Chancellor\n\n\n                            No. M2","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4673395],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"This appeal arises from a boundary dispute in a residential neighborhood in Nashville. After a bench trial, the court determined the boundary between the plaintiff's and the defendants' properties was depicted on a survey prepared by the plaintiff's surveyor. The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in determining the location of the boundary. Having concluded that the evidence preponderates in favor of the trial court's decision, we affirm. Additionally, we have determined that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the reasonable and necessary expenses and attorney's fees incurred as the result of a frivolous appeal in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-1-122. Therefore, we remand for the trial court to make the appropriate award."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4888356/sc-coastal-conservation-league-v-scdhec/","attorney":"","caseName":"SC Coastal Conservation League v. SCDHEC","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4888356,"court":"Supreme Court of South Carolina","court_citation_string":"S.C.","court_id":"sc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-06-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2019-000074","docket_id":59954434,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-03T15:05:23.476158Z","date_created":"2021-06-02T14:15:27.079249Z","score":{"bm25":10.054625}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1347589,1349151,1402903],"download_url":"http://www.sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/28031.pdf","id":4692135,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/06/02/sc_coastal_conservation_league_v._scdhec.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T20:03:31.688698Z","date_created":"2021-06-02T14:15:27.081591Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8236a270699acfabd3480ececb583dc8a15f9e07","snippet":"                      THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA\n                           In The Supreme Court\n\n            South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, Appellant,\n\n            v.\n\n            South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental\n            Control, KDP, II, LLC, and KRA Development, LP,\n            Respondents.\n\n            Appellate Case No. 2019-000074\n\n\n\n                     Appeal from the Administrative Law Court\n                 Ralph King Anderson, III, Administrative","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4692135],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"This appeal concerns the ALC's decision to uphold DHEC's issuance of four permits and a certification necessary to construct a 2,380-foot steel sheet pile wall designed to combat the erosive forces of the Kiawah River along Captain Sam's Spit. While the Coastal Conservation League (League) raises numerous issues on appeal, we hold the ALC erred in three respects: in accepting DHEC's narrow, formulaic interpretation of whether a permit that indisputably impacts a critical area warrants the more stringent review normally accorded to such structures in relying on the protection of Beachwalker Park to justify the entire wall and, in determining the public will benefit from the wall based on purely economic reasons. Accordingly, we reverse."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5065236/south-carolina-coastal-conservation-league-v-scdhec/","attorney":"","caseName":"South Carolina Coastal Conservation League v. SCDHEC","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":5065236,"court":"Supreme Court of South Carolina","court_citation_string":"S.C.","court_id":"sc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-09-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2019-000074","docket_id":60330522,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-03T15:05:24.577011Z","date_created":"2021-09-01T14:27:19.023811Z","score":{"bm25":9.845243}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1347589,1349151,1402903],"download_url":"http://www.sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/28031.pdf","id":4880617,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/09/01/south_carolina_coastal_conservation_league_v._scdhec.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T21:19:34.008519Z","date_created":"2021-09-01T14:27:19.027216Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"89657fee83f9fa019e643ff13e1416d7f829de26","snippet":"        The Supreme Court of South Carolina\n\n             South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, Appellant,\n\n             v.\n\n             South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental\n             Control, KDP, II, LLC, and KRA Development, LP,\n             Respondents.\n\n             Appellate Case No. 2019-000074\n\n\n\n                                      ORDER\n\n\nAfter careful consideration of the petition for rehearing, the Court is unable to\ndiscover that any material fact or prin","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4880617],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"This appeal concerns the ALC's decision to uphold DHEC's issuance of four permits and a certification necessary to construct a 2,380-foot steel sheet pile wall designed to combat the erosive forces of the Kiawah River along Captain Sam's Spit. While the Coastal Conservation League (League) raises numerous issues on appeal, we hold the ALC erred in three respects: in accepting DHEC's narrow, formulaic interpretation of whether a permit that indisputably impacts a critical area warrants the more stringent review normally accorded to such structures in relying on the protection of Beachwalker Park to justify the entire wall and, in determining the public will benefit from the wall based on purely economic reasons. Accordingly, we reverse."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6619378/sierra-club-v-ferc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Sierra Club v. FERC","caseNameFull":"","citation":["38 F.4th 220"],"citeCount":6,"cluster_id":6619378,"court":"Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit","court_citation_string":"D.C. Cir.","court_id":"cadc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-06-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"20-1427","docket_id":63553099,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-17T21:50:08.600206Z","date_created":"2022-06-28T15:00:41.882941Z","score":{"bm25":9.578943}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[100254,110953,112256,186028,715746,2718297,2796389,3217526,3217527,4160424,4292133,4436281,4524416,4697473,8410841,8415005,9421849,9426523,9431664,9478585,9799838,9877989],"download_url":"https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/0/DC499B8398A22CBE8525886F004D9C87/$file/20-1427-1952427.pdf","id":6495736,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/06/28/sierra_club_v._ferc.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-27T22:35:35.942657Z","date_created":"2022-06-28T15:00:41.891246Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"45fa87b4f4af88c99e7091cd5b19709350e8d578","snippet":" United States Court of Appeals\n         FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued January 19, 2022                Decided June 28, 2022\n\n                        No. 20-1427\n\n                    SIERRA CLUB, ET AL.,\n                        PETITIONERS\n\n                              v.\n\n       FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,\n                    RESPONDENT\n\n  MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC AND PUBLIC SERVICE\n COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA, D/B/A DOMINION ENERGY\n                NORTH CAROLINA","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6495736],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9426396/clovis-b-lawless-v-community-trust-bancorp/","attorney":"","caseName":"Clovis B. Lawless v. Community Trust Bancorp","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9426396,"court":"West Virginia Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"W. Va.","court_id":"wva","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-09-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"21-0833","docket_id":67798139,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:13:19.755099Z","date_created":"2023-09-14T21:11:52.550943Z","score":{"bm25":9.5557995}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[8182735],"download_url":"http://www.courtswv.gov/supreme-court/memo-decisions/fall2023/21-0833 md.pdf","id":9840021,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/09/14/clovis_b._lawless_v._community_trust_bancorp.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T08:03:58.075802Z","date_created":"2023-09-14T21:11:52.552595Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"837839602bd7c4527234be79afdc6b0320f6d49c","snippet":"                                                                                 FILED\n                                                                           September 14, 2023\n                                                                             EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK\n                                                                             SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS\n                                                                                 OF WEST VIRGINIA\n                ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9840021],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Workers Compensation","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9355583/ohio-power-co-v-burns/","attorney":"","caseName":"Ohio Power Co. v. Burns","caseNameFull":"","citation":["171 Ohio St. 3d 84","215 N.E.3d 527","2022 Ohio 4713"],"citeCount":18,"cluster_id":9355583,"court":"Ohio Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Ohio","court_id":"ohio","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-12-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2021-1168","docket_id":66687792,"judge":"Fischer, J.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:06:56.684100Z","date_created":"2022-12-29T14:07:26.728525Z","score":{"bm25":9.541445}},"neutralCite":"2022 Ohio 4713","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2735907,3784753,4224679,4410177,4473331,4710005],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2022/2022-Ohio-4713.pdf","id":9351055,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/12/29/ohio_power_co._v._burns.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-28T06:17:12.296263Z","date_created":"2022-12-29T14:07:26.732205Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f30b305876653f3d24a1005557ac3d67be22c3a6","snippet":"[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Ohio\nPower Co. v. Burns, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4713.]\n\n\n\n\n                                          NOTICE\n      This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an\n      advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to\n      promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65\n      South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typograp","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9351055],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Necessity of easements sought by agency through eminent domain—Applicability of necessity presumptions in R.C. 163.09(B)(1)—The term \"appropriation\" in R.C. 163.09(B)(1) means the appropriation of the specific property, or right therein, that is subject to the taking by the agency as set forth in its petition filed under R.C. 163.05—Agency did not \"abandon\" appropriation proceedings under R.C. 163.21(A) when it conceded that a term in proposed easements was unnecessary."}]}