Appalachian Power Company v. William Nissen, II
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:14-cv-00535-NKM-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-1062]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
WILLIAM W. NISSEN, II; LORA J. NISSEN,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, Senior District
December 15, 2016
December 19, 2016
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pavlina B. Dirom, J. Frederick Watson, CASKIE & FROST, Lynchburg,
Virginia, for Appellants. Matthew P. Pritts, Frank K. Friedman,
C. Carter Lee, WOODS ROGERS, PLC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
William W. Nissen, II, and Lora J. Nissen appeal the district
court’s orders denying their motion to dismiss for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction and granting Appalachian Power Co.’s (APCO)
motion for summary judgment. Because we conclude that the district
court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, we vacate the judgment
of the district court and remand.
Our recent decision in Pressl v. Appalachian Power Co., ___
F.3d ___, No. 15-2348, 2016 WL 6833339 (4th Cir. Nov. 21, 2016),
which concerned identical law and nearly identical facts, and for
which this appeal was placed in abeyance, governs the outcome of
In Pressl, the Pressls sought a declaratory judgment
in state court allowing them to build a dock on their land subject
to APCO’s flowage easement for the Smith Mountain hydroelectric
Id. at *1.
APCO removed the action, and the Pressls
sought to remand, which the district court denied.
that the district court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2012) or 16 U.S.C. § 825p (2012) because
interpretation of APCO’s flowage easement does not necessarily
raise any federal question.
Id. at *3-6.
Here, the Nissens, who also seek to build a dock on Smith
Mountain Lake, make the same arguments as the Pressls regarding
APCO’s flowage easement on their land, which appears to be nearly
identical to the easement APCO has on the Pressls’ land.
Pg: 3 of 3
under Pressl, the district court did not have subject-matter
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 16 U.S.C. § 825p, we vacate
the judgment of the district court and remand.
We dispense with
argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?