Large v. Clinchfield Coal Co.
Virginia Supreme Court
387 S.E.2d 783 (1990)
- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
Gerald and Betty Large (plaintiffs) owned a tract of land. The Clinchfield Coal Company (Clinchfield) (defendant) owned the mineral rights underneath the land. Clinchfield sought to engage in longwall coal mining. Through this process, Clinchfield would remove all coal in a seam and place temporary shoring. The shoring would then be removed, and Clinchfield would not leave any supporting pillars. The immediate roof would collapse, and the roof above that would fracture. The third roof, which extended to the surface, would flex but would not fracture and break as the lower roofs would. The surface would have uniform subsidence (i.e., would drop about three feet). But there would be no cracks or appreciable damage to the surface. The Larges sued Clinchfield, seeking a declaratory judgment and injunction against the mining. The trial court found that there would be no appreciable damage to the surface property and that not using longwall mining would cause great economic loss. But the trial court still found for the Larges because it concluded that the right to subjacent support under the surface was absolute. The parties appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Whiting, J.)
Dissent (Russell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 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.
