Commonwealth v. Barnes & Tucker Co.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
371 A.2d 461 (1977)
- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
The Barnes & Tucker Company (BT) (defendant) operated Mine No. 15 for decades. Eventually, BT closed Mine No. 15 and began operating an adjacent mine. Mine No. 15, however, began discharging acid mine water into a river. Some of the discharge was attributable to fugitive mine water, which was water that entered Mine No. 15 from adjoining mines unrelated to BT. Regardless of the cause, the discharge caused significant damage to the state’s waterways. The Pennsylvania government responded by revoking BT’s permit to operate the adjacent mine. Eventually, the parties took the matter to court, disputing whether BT had to take steps to treat the acid mine water being discharged from Mine No. 15. After significant litigation (including a previous appeal), the trial court concluded that the discharge constituted a public nuisance and that BT would be required to pump the mine water and maintain a treatment program. The court also ordered BT to pay any costs that the Pennsylvania government incurred while the litigation was pending. BT appealed, claiming that this remedy was an unconstitutional exercise of the police power and that the action was an unconstitutional taking.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jones, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 791,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
