as to conduct occurring after the judgment, logically its holding as to designation of the servitude must be considered to apply to any servitude existing at the time the Lake case was decided, and thus would be applicable to the electric power-line here. The servitude involved here, however, is not for the powerline itself, but simply for the placement of a pole on plaintiff’s land. As NOPSI states in its brief, “The only thing which is located partially on petitioner’s land is a single guy pole. This guy pole is not energized, nor is it connected to an energized wire. Its only function is to maintain tension against structures on the adjacent land, which in turn support electrical transmission wires. It requires no ‘act of man’ to use the guy pole. It fulfilled its entire function (<HOLDING>) before the electrical transmission lines were
holding up the utility pole holding the pslra codified the prior standard set up by the second circuit holding that whether the contract was abandoned by movant was inextricably tied up with the merits of the underlying arbitrable dispute regarding the adequacy of the movants contract performance holding that the district courts error in exercising jurisdiction was harmless error because the court properly applied the relevant state law to the undisputed material facts and came up with the right answer holding that the court cannot by splitting up the territory make a new contract for the parties