Mike Ross, Inc. v. Dante Coal Co.
United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
230 F. Supp. 2d 716 (2002)
- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
Mike Ross, Inc. (plaintiff) and the Dante Coal Company (Dante) (defendant) both had interests in a piece of land. Specifically, Dante had a lease giving it the right to mine coal under the land. The lease stated that the right continued until the coal was reasonably exhausted or until the lease terminated by its provisions. The lease also obligated Dante to remove the coal in an efficient manner and had a minimum-royalties requirement by which Dante had to pay a minimum amount per year. Dante initially mined the property but then stopped mining for over 15 years. However, Dante maintained a physical presence on the premises, maintained necessary permits, and continued to meet its minimum-royalty requirements. Indeed, Dante even engaged in test drilling to determine the possibility of subleasing its interest. Mike Ross and Dante later disputed how much coal was left in the property and how profitable extraction of that coal could be. Mike Ross sued Dante, seeking a declaration that Dante had forfeited and abandoned the lease by failing to produce coal from the tract. Dante responded that it had not abandoned the lease. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Keeley, 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.