Skip to main content

Nevada Power Company v. Trench France, S.A.S.

D. Nev.February 21, 2020No. 2:19-cv-01252

Case Details

Nature of Suit
Prop. Damage Prod. Liability
Status
Unknown
State
Nevada
Circuit
9th Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

No outcome information available in provided snippet.

Similar Rulings

Nevada Power Company v. Trench France, S.A.S.
D. Nev.Nov 2020
Unresolvable
Nevada Power Company v. Trench France, S.A.S.
D. Nev.Mar 2020
Unresolvable
Class Five Nevada v. Dow Corning Corp. (In Re Dow Corning Corp.)
6th CircuitJan 2002
Mixed Result
In re General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation
S.D.N.Y.Jun 2017
Settlement
Collins
Unknown CourtJan 1890

<p>APPEALS BY PLAINTIFFS FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 2 OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY.</p> <p>Nos. 177, 204 October Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, Nos. 157, 509 April Term 1888, C. P. No. 2.</p> <p>To No. 157 April Term 1888, of the court below, Nannie R. Collins brought trespass against the Chartiers Valley Gas Company to recover damages for an injury to a water well owned by the plaintiff, alleged to have been occasioned by the negligence of the defendant. To No. 509 of the same term Mary L. Osbon brought a similar action against the same defendant to recover for a like injury.</p> <p>The two cases having been put at issue, they were tried together on May 6, 1889, when the following facts were shown:</p> <p>Each of the plaintiffs is the owner of a small lot of ground, with a house thereon, situate in the borough of Glenfield in Allegheny county. On each of said lots is a well used to supply water for domestic uses on the premises. On June 7,1887, the defendant, being engaged in the business of producing and supplying natural gas, entered into a written contract with C. J. Hummel, by which Hummel engaged to drill a well for natural gas upon a “ location ” in the borough of Glenfield, distant about 100 feet from the water'well of one of the plaintiffs, and about 125 feet from that of the other. The contract provided that Hummel should encase said gas well with eight and one fourth inch casing to the depth of 700 feet, and deep enough to shut off all fresh water, and below that with six inch casing to shut off any water or caving rock found just above the gas rock, and should warrant the well absolutely free from water and do all work to the satisfaction of the defendant’s superintendent ; all tools, and gas and Avater connections, to be furnished by Hummel, and all casing required for the well to be furnished by the defendant. The contract contained also the following clause: “ All springs to be fully protected from damage, and drillings to be carried from the wells

Mixed Result

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.