The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
24-1630•Close Armstrong, LLC v. Trunkline Gas Company, LLC
24-1630Court of Appeals for the Seventh CircuitApr 24, 2026
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
April 24, 2026
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge
NANCY L. MALDONADO, Circuit Judge
No. 24-1630
CLOSE ARMSTRONG, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
TRUNKLINE GAS COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, South Bend Division.
Nos. 3:18-cv-00270 & 3:18-cv-00494
Damon R. Leichty,
District Judge.
O R D E R
All members of the panel have voted to deny the petition for rehearing filed on
April 14, 2026. The petition therefore is DENIED.
Page 2, second sentence, of the opinion issued on March 31, 2026, is amended to
read:
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 5, first paragraph, of the opinion issued on March 31, 2026, is amended to
read:
-- 1 of 2 --
No. 24-1630 Page 2
Both landowners filed suit—Close Armstrong in state court and the
Dicksons later in federal court—seeking a declaration to locate and limit the
scope of Trunkline’s easement. After removing Close Armstrong’s
complaint to federal court, Trunkline counterclaimed in each action seeking
its own declaration that the burden of its easement was unlimited. The
district court consolidated the cases and divided the litigation into two
phases. Both phases resulted in partial summary judgment in Trunkline’s
favor.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.