Close Armstrong, LLC v. Trunkline Gas Company, LLC

Close Armstrong · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · April 24, 2026 · No. 24-1630

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied the petition for rehearing in Close Armstrong, LLC v. Trunkline Gas Company, LLC. The court amended portions of its March 31, 2026, opinion concerning the landowners’ suit to define and limit the scope of Trunkline’s pipeline easement.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Writing for the Court
Frank H. Easterbrook; Candace Jackson-Akiwumi; Nancy L. Maldonado
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decision date
April 24, 2026
Docket number
24-1630
Procedural posture
Order denying plaintiffs-appellants' petition for rehearing and amending specified sentences in the court's March 31, 2026 opinion.
Precedential value
Published
Parties
Close Armstrong, LLC, Other landowners v. Trunkline Gas Company, LLC
Disposition
writ_denied

Topics

easementsappellate proceduresummary judgment

Practice areas

real estatecivil procedureappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the petition for rehearing should be granted.
  2. Whether specified sentences in the Seventh Circuit's March 31, 2026 opinion should be amended.

Holdings

  1. The petition for rehearing is denied.
  2. The court amended the specified sentences on page 2, second sentence, and page 5, first paragraph, of its March 31, 2026 opinion.

Key quotations

All members of the panel have voted to deny the petition for rehearing filed on April 14, 2026. The petition therefore is DENIED. (Page 1)
With that goal in mind, the landowners filed suit to define the scope of the easement as limited to the area immediately surrounding the existing pipeline. (Page 1)

Factual background

The landowners sought to define and limit the scope of Trunkline's easement to the area immediately surrounding an existing pipeline. Close Armstrong filed in state court, while the Dicksons later filed in federal court. After removal and consolidation, the district court entered partial summary judgment in Trunkline's favor in both phases of the litigation.

Procedural history

Close Armstrong filed suit in state court, and the Dicksons later filed suit in federal court, seeking declarations concerning the location and scope of Trunkline's easement. Trunkline removed the Close Armstrong action, counterclaimed in both actions, and sought a declaration that its easement was unlimited. The district court consolidated the cases, divided the litigation into two phases, and entered partial summary judgment in Trunkline's favor in both phases. The Seventh Circuit's order denies rehearing and amends portions of its prior opinion.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…