Little v. Dominion Transmission, Inc.
138 F. Supp. 3d 699 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute that authorizes a natural gas company to enter private property for surveying purposes without the owner's consent is not unconstitutionally vague when its plain language covers both a landowner's failure to grant permission and an affirmative denial of permission.
Facts:
- William W. Little, II, and Wendy M. Little own residential property in Augusta County, Virginia.
- Dominion Transmission, Inc., a natural gas company, proposed constructing a new pipeline with a route that ran across the Littles' property.
- On August 12, 2014, Dominion sent a letter to the Littles requesting written permission to enter their land to conduct a survey to verify its suitability for the pipeline.
- On September 25, 2014, the Littles responded with a letter explicitly denying Dominion permission to enter their property and warning that any entry would be considered trespassing.
- On October 10, 2014, Dominion sent another letter to the Littles, citing its authority under Virginia Code § 56-49.01 and giving notice of its intent to enter the property to perform surveys on or after October 27, 2014, despite not having received permission.
Procedural Posture:
- The Littles filed a complaint against Dominion Transmission, Inc. in the Circuit Court of Augusta County, Virginia (a state trial court), seeking an injunction.
- Dominion removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia based on diversity of citizenship.
- The Commonwealth of Virginia intervened in the case to defend the constitutionality of the state statute.
- Dominion filed a motion to dismiss the Littles' complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is Virginia Code § 56-49.01, which allows a natural gas company to enter private property for surveying purposes if the owner's 'written permission is not received,' unconstitutionally vague because it does not explicitly differentiate between a landowner failing to respond and a landowner affirmatively denying permission?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Dillon
No, Virginia Code § 56-49.01 is not unconstitutionally vague. The statute's language plainly authorizes entry 'without the written permission of its owner' and when 'the owner’s written permission is not received,' which unambiguously covers both situations where a landowner is silent and where a landowner affirmatively denies permission. The statute gives persons of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is required and provides sufficient standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement by limiting the purpose and scope of the entry and requiring reimbursement for any actual damages.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that a statute granting limited access to private land for public utility development does not need to enumerate every possible landowner response to withstand a vagueness challenge. By focusing on the plain meaning of phrases like 'permission is not received,' the court reinforces that economic regulations are subject to a less stringent vagueness test. The ruling provides legal certainty for utility companies acting under similar statutes, establishing that an owner's affirmative denial does not create a legal distinction that invalidates the company's statutory right of entry, so long as procedural requirements are met.
Unlock the full brief for Little v. Dominion Transmission, Inc.