Jacobs v. CNG Transmission Corp.
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
332 F.Supp.2d 759, 162 O. & G.R. 33 (2004)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Darryl Jacobs and his wife (plaintiffs) acquired a lessor’s interest in an oil and gas lease. CNG Transmission Corporation (CNG) (defendant) was the lessee. The lease’s granting clause stated that the purpose of the lease was for oil and gas production, with a further purpose of allowing CNG to store gas on the leasehold. The habendum clause of the lease provided for a 10-year primary term and stated that the lease would remain in effect for as long thereafter as the leasehold “or any other land pooled or utilized therewith . . . [was] operated by [CNG] in search for or production of oil or gas or as long as gas [was] being stored, held in storage, or withdrawn from the premises by [CNG].” The lease did not contain a provision expressly stating whether the lease was severable or entire. CNG never drilled on or pooled the leasehold, but did store gas in the subsurface of the property. The plaintiffs brought suit against CNG in the Court of Common Pleas of Armstrong County, seeking cancellation of the lease based on, among other things, a claim that the production, pooling, and storage provisions in the lease were severable. CNG removed the action to federal district court and argued that the lease was indivisible. Both parties cross-moved for summary judgment on this issue and on other grounds.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cercone, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 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.