Larson v. Sinclair Transportation Co., 2012 CO 36

Sinclair and predecessors held right-of-way easements crossing two parcels for a six-inch gasoline pipeline since 1963.
In 2006 Sinclair sought new adjacent easements to lay a second pipeline; negotiations failed and Sinclair petitioned for immediate possession.
Trial court held Sinclair had condemnation authority under section 38-5-105 and granted immediate possession, with a valuation hearing later.
Court of Appeals affirmed, interpreting section 38-5-105 to include petroleum pipelines as within condemnation authority for pipeline companies.
Colorado Supreme Court reversed, holding section 38-5-105 does not authorize condemnation for petroleum pipelines and that the power is limited to electric power infrastructure.
Dissenting opinions argued that pipeline companies, including petroleum pipelines, fall within the statute and should have eminent domain authority.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does §38-5-105 authorize condemnation for petroleum pipelines?	Sinclair: pipeline companies may condemn under §38-5-105.	Landowners: petroleum pipelines are not within the statute's scope.	No; condemnation authority not granted for petroleum pipelines.
Does Article 5’s structure limit condemnation to electric power infrastructure?	Sinclair's broader reading fits pipeline company language.	Landowners: oil pipelines fall outside the built context of electric infrastructure.	Yes; authority limited to electric power infrastructure.
Is the phrase 'such purposes' tied to electric power or oil/petroleum transport in §38-5-105?	Petroleum pipelines fall within the purposes of section 105.	Purposes relate to electric power systems, not petroleum.	Such purposes refer to electric-related systems; petroleum not included.
Should the existence of other statutes authorizing pipeline condemnation affect the interpretation of §38-5-105 here?	Overlapping statutes do not negate the scope of §38-5-105.	Other statutes show the narrowly defined scope for condemnation.	Overlaps do not render §38-5-105 ambiguous; petroleum pipelines are not covered.

Coquina Oil Corp. v. Harry Kourlis Ranch, 643 P.2d 519 (Colo.1982) (condemnation power must be granted expressly or by clear implication)
Bly v. Story, 241 P.3d 529 (Colo.2010) (condemnation authority construed narrowly in private-entity contexts)
Town of Eaton v. Bouslog, 133 Colo. 130, 292 P.2d 343 (Colo.1956) (principles of narrowly constraining condemnation powers)