Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantstatuteeasementregulationeminent domainlegislative intent
defendantstatuteeasementregulationlegislative intent

Related Cases

Black Hills Institute of Geological Research v. South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, 12 F.3d 737, 62 USLW 2397, 28 Fed.R.Serv.3d 232, 88 Ed. Law Rep. 73
View Case »
Paterson v. Bridges, 16 Ala.App. 54, 75 So. 260
View Case »
Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494, 118 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3041, 53 USLW 4306, 23 Ed. Law Rep. 473, 1 IER Cases 424
View Case »
Marcus Brown Holding Co. v. Feldman, 256 U.S. 170, 41 S.Ct. 465, 65 L.Ed. 877
View Case »
Sorenson v. Czinger, 70 Wash.App. 270, 852 P.2d 1124
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Lakehead Pipe Line Co. v. Dehn, 340 Mich. 25, 64 N.W.2d 903

Facts

Lakehead Pipe Line Company, Inc. sought to condemn a right-of-way across land in Bay County owned by defendants for the construction of a pipeline to transport petroleum products. The company was organized in 1949 and had received approval from the Michigan public service commission to operate as a common carrier. The pipeline would extend from the Wisconsin-Michigan border to the international boundary, forming part of a larger system for transporting oil from Canada to refineries in Michigan and beyond. Defendants contested the condemnation, arguing that the statute did not authorize such action for primarily interstate purposes.

Lakehead Pipe Line Company, Inc. sought to condemn a right-of-way across land in Bay County owned by defendants for the construction of a pipeline to transport petroleum products.

Issue

Whether the statute regulating the transportation of petroleum through pipelines allows for the condemnation of property for a pipeline that is part of an interstate transportation system.

Whether the statute regulating the transportation of petroleum through pipelines allows for the condemnation of property for a pipeline that is part of an interstate transportation system.

Rule

The court interpreted the statute to allow for the condemnation of property for the construction and operation of pipelines, regardless of whether the transportation was intrastate or interstate.

The court interpreted the statute to allow for the condemnation of property for the construction and operation of pipelines, regardless of whether the transportation was intrastate or interstate.

Analysis

The court analyzed the legislative intent behind the statute and concluded that it was not limited to intrastate transportation. The provisions of the statute indicated a broader purpose, allowing for the regulation of transportation of petroleum products through pipelines, including those that facilitate interstate commerce. The court emphasized that the public necessity for the pipeline justified the exercise of eminent domain.

The court analyzed the legislative intent behind the statute and concluded that it was not limited to intrastate transportation. The provisions of the statute indicated a broader purpose, allowing for the regulation of transportation of petroleum products through pipelines, including those that facilitate interstate commerce.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's order, confirming the commissioners' report that a public necessity existed for the taking of the easement across the defendants' property.

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's order, confirming the commissioners' report that a public necessity existed for the taking of the easement across the defendants' property.

Who won?

Lakehead Pipe Line Company, Inc. prevailed in the case because the court found that the condemnation was justified under the statute and necessary for public use.

Lakehead Pipe Line Company, Inc. prevailed in the case because the court found that the condemnation was justified under the statute and necessary for public use.

You must be