Chevron Pipe Line Co. v. De Roest
| Decision Date | 29 September 1993 |
| Citation | 868 P.2d 1,126 Or.App. 113 |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
| Parties | CHEVRON PIPE LINE CO., a Delaware corporation, Appellant, v. Donald DE ROEST, Respondent, and John Does 1 Through 10 and Corporations A Through Z, Defendants. 900561; CA A72903. . On Appellant's Petition for Reconsideration |
John H. Kottkamp, Kottkamp & O'Rourke, Pendleton, Stephen R. Thomas and Moffatt, Thomas, Barrett, Rock & Fields, Chartered, Boise, ID, for the petition.
George W. Kelly, Eugene, contra.
Before ROSSMAN, P.J., and De MUNIZ and LEESON, JJ.
Plaintiff has filed a petition for review of our opinion, 122 Or.App. 440, 858 P.2d 164 (1993), in which we affirmed the trial court's ruling denying plaintiff a permanent injunction that would require defendant to remove fill material and heavy equipment from plaintiff's pipe line easement. We treat the petition as one for reconsideration, allow it, and modify our opinion to correct a factual error. We adhere to our opinion as modified.
The primary thrust of the petition is to bring to our attention two factual inaccuracies. In our opinion, we said that the easement in question had been conveyed by three deeds and that the easement is subject to a rider. Plaintiff now points out that only two of the deeds affect the subject property, and that only one of the deeds affecting the subject property contains the rider. We modify our opinion accordingly. That does not change our conclusion, however, that the existence of the rider shows that the original parties to the easement contemplated that the servient tenement was "used as part of a sawmill operation in connection with which substantial quantities of lumber and other inflammatory products accumulate and may be piled in close proximity to said pipeline," and that the record does not show whether the use to which defendant has put the property is more intense than that which the original parties to the easement contemplated. 122 Or.App. at 446, 858 P.2d 164.
As the Supreme Court said in Jones v. Edwards, 219 Or. 429, 347 P.2d 846 (1959), the servient owner
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D'Abbracci v. Shaw-Bastian
...the easement. See Chevron Pipe Line Co. v. De Roest, 122 Or.App. 440, 446, 858 P.2d 164 (1993), adh'd to as modified on recons., 126 Or.App. 113, 868 P.2d 1, rev. den., 319 Or. 80, 876 P.2d 783 (1994) (rock piled on a pipeline easement by the servient owner did not unreasonably interfere wi......
-
Tooker v. Feinstein
...of the dominant tenant are mutually limiting. Chevron Pipe Line Co. v. De Roest, 122 Or.App. 440, 445, 858 P.2d 164, (1993), mod. 126 Or.App. 113, 868 P.2d 1, rev. den. 319 Or. 80, 876 P.2d 783 (1994). On the other hand, easements are burdensome by their very nature, and the fact that a giv......
-
Tipperman v. Tsiatsos
...of the dominant tenant are mutually limiting. Chevron Pipe Line Co. v. DeRoest, 122 Or.App. 440, 445, 858 P.2d 164 (1993) mod 126 Or.App. 113 [868 P.2d 1], rev den 319 Or. 80 [876 P.2d 783] (1994). On the other hand, easements are burdensome by their very nature, and the fact that a given u......
-
Chevron Pipe Line Co. v. De Roest
...783 876 P.2d 783 319 Or. 80 Chevron Pipe Line Co. v. De Roest NOS. A72903, S41125 Supreme Court of Oregon May 10, 1994 126 Or.App. 113, 868 P.2d 1. Durham, J., would DENIED. ...
-
Restatement Third, Torts: Products Liability; what hath the ALI wrought?
...(25.) See, e.g., Welsh v. Bowling Elec. Mach. Inc., 875 S.W.2d 569, 572-73 (Mo.App. 1994); Bond v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 868 P.2d 1] 14, 1118 (Colo. 1993), cert. denied, 1994 Colo. Lexis 203 (Colo. Feb. 28, (26.) See Brown v. Superior Court, 751 P.2d 470 (Cal. 1988). (27.) See T......
-
CHAPTER 10 BUILDING YOUR OWN UNDERGROUND GAS STORAGE PROJECT: FROM LEASING TO OPEN SEASON UNDER FERC ORDER 636
...estate owner follows in § 19.03[2][b], infra. [29] See Chevron Pipe Line Co. v. De Roest, 858 P.2d 164 (1993), aff'd on reconsideration, 868 P.2d 1 (Or. Ct. App. 1994) (injunction denied oil pipeline operator seeking to force landowner to remove 20 feet of asphalt and concrete fill from ove......