U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1970

Key Sales Company v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided February 12, 1970 · Haynsworth, Boreman, Butzner

422 F.2d 389; 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10732 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Julius W. McKay, Albert L. Moses, Columbia, S. C., and Jack W. Floyd, Greensboro, N. C. (McKay, McKay, Black, Sherrill, Walker & Wilkins, Columbia, S. C., Smith, Moore, Smith, Schell & Hunter, Greensboro, N. C., on brief), for appellant., Harold W. Jacobs and Charles W. Knowlton, Columbia, S. C. (Frank B. Gary, Cooper, Gary, Nexsen & Pruet, Boyd, Bruton, Knowlton & Tate, Columbia, S. C., on brief), for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision. The 5 that cite it most often are listed here.

Nez Perce Tribe v. Idaho Power Co. (United States District Court for the District of Idaho 1994)
DiLaura v. Power Authority (2d Cir. 1992)
DiLaura v. Power Authority of State of New York (District Court, W.D. New York 1991)
South Carolina Public Service Authority v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (D.C. Cir. 1988)
Marjorie Linder Cooley v. Clifton Power Corporation (4th Cir. 1984)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Key Sales Co., a real estate developer, appeals from a judgment denying it recovery for flood damages by water released from the South Carolina Electric & Gas Company’s hydroelectric dam on the Saluda River. * Amply sup *390 ported by the record, the district judge found that the peak discharge of water from the dam did not exceed the peak flow of water into the dam, that the realty company’s land which lay in the flood plain of the river had been flooded 15 times in the last eighty years, and that the extraordinary rainfall on this occasion would have flooded it had the dam not been in existence. He also held that the power company exercised due care in evaluating weather reports and in operating its dam. The district judge, correctly we believe, interpreted the law of South Carolina, which governs this diversity action, and rightly concluded that the power company was not liable under any of the several theories the realty company asserted for recovery.

Furthermore, since the power company was not obliged by state law or federal license to operate its dam as a flood control facility for the benefit of lower riparian owners, liability cannot be based on 16 U.S.C. § 803(c). We do not foreclose, however, the possibility under other circumstances of giving this statute a broader construction than that accorded it by the district judge.

The judgment is affirmed.

Key Sales Co. v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Co., 290 F.Supp. 8 (D.S.C. 1968).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.