Zettlemoyer v. Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• acknowledging “that a grantee’s subsequent - 16 - J-A12019-24 agreement, use, and acquiescence has some value as evidence of the original intent or purpose of the grant”
• alterations of easements expressly granted will be interpreted under contract law principles; permission to alter must be intended by words or meaning of grant
• “Our holding limits Transco to what is reasonable and necessary to fulfill the purpose of the agreement within the original intent of the parties to the grant.”
• “Where the width of an easement is unambiguously specified in the grant, the grantee is obviously restricted to that width even if it is insufficient for his purposes and enjoyment.”
• “our cases tell us that when the grant of an easement is ambiguous we must determine if the grantee’s asserted use is a reasonable and necessary use in relation to the original purpose of the grant and within the intention of the original parties to the grant”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).