Court Opinion

ID: 9642502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:00:50.736658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:48.835350
License: Public Domain

On Motion to Reargue.
Per Curiam.
After our opinion herein was filed, the complainants in the cases by permission of the court presented motions for leave to reargue. In the case of Donald R. Hood et al. and William E. Powers, Atty. Gen., ex rel. Donald R. Hood et al. v. Hyman L. Slefkin et al., Equity No. 2680, the complainants subsequently withdrew their motion for leave to reargue. However, in the case of Anita H. Winsten v. Hyman L. Slefkin et al., Equity No. 2681, the complainant presses her motion for leave to reargue.
She contends that this court has either overlooked or misconceived certain evidence relating to the location of the boundaries of land owned by her lying east of the east trench below the Lebanon-Walker Dam. Upon consideration we are of the opinion that on the evidence in the record which complainant alleges we have overlooked or misconceived, her contention raises an issue of sufficient importance to warrant further arguments on the narrow issue of the precise location of the boundary of her land in relation to- the east trench below the Lebanon-Walker Dam.
As thus limited, the motion of the complainant for leave to reargue is granted in the case of Anita H. Winsten v. Hyman L. Slefkin et al., Equity No. 2681.