Cases

PETERS, J. hThe numerous plaintiffs in this oilfield contamination litigation appeal the trial court’s grant of a summary judgment dismissing their claims against one of the defendants, Radke Oil Company, Inc. For *423the following reasons, we affirm the trial court judgment. DISCUSSION OF THE RECORD The plaintiffs are individual

DREW, J. Lin this matter involving alleged damages to property caused by contamination from mineral operations, the primary issue is the legal effect of the mineral servitude owners’ rights to sue for damages that were conveyed to the surface owners. The plaintiffs1 acquired the property (surface rights only) in 2004. Oil and gas exploration on the property began in 1945.

ORDER AND REASONS CARL J. BARBIER, District Judge. Before the Court are Defendant Valspar Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 28), and Plaintiffs Opposition (Rec. Doc. 33). The motion is before the Court on supporting memoranda, without oral argument. Having considered the motion and legal memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 2

513 F.Supp.2d 641 (2007) Malcolm Louis LeBLANC, et al. v. CHEVRON USA, INC., et al. Civil Action No. 05-5485. United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana. June 18, 2007. John M. Futrell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, New Orleans, LA, Lynn E. Williams, Jr., Lynn Eric Williams, Jr., APLC, Metairie, LA, for for Malcolm Louis LeBlanc, Victoria Richaux LeBlanc, Timoth

(2007) ROBERT L. COLE; LILLIE R. ASH; JESSIE M. HAYNES; JOYCE M. LOFTIN; DORETHA S. HICKS; RENNETE McKNIGHT; RANDY BEESLEY; CHARLES WILLIAMS; SHELIA A. BOOTH; BERTIE W. DAVIS; MARGARETT COLEMAN; MARY REVETTE; JANET REVETTE; BRENDA JOHNSON; PATTY McDONALD; DEBORAH A. MADISON; LELA M. HALL; SHARRON BUCHANAN; EARNESTINE FORTENBERRY; DENISE MIKELL; JAMES ARRINGTON; DERITT P. LOPER; WILLIE WOULLARD; LATOYNA Y. RICHARDSON; GLORIA L. BUXTON; MILEHARMAR DODSON;

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TRANSBAY AUTO SERVICE, INC., a No. 13-15439 California corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-04932-SI v. CHEVRON USA INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellant. TRANSBAY AUTO SERVICE, INC., a No. 14-15297 California corporation, Plaintiff-

ORDER In conformance with the mandate of the Supreme Court, we remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the United States Supreme Court. See — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 2074, 161 L.Ed.2d 876 (2005).

MEMORANDUM** Plaintiffs Barbara Berry, Sheila Nixon Smith, and Doris Clark appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants (collectively, “Chevron”). The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment de novo. Lindahl v. Air Fr

W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge, dissenting: At issue in this case is the constitutionality of Hawai’i’s Act 257, which controls the rent an oil company can charge its dealer/lessees. There are two different constitutional tests that could conceivably apply *859to Act 257. The first is the “reasonableness” test ordinarily applied to rent and price control st

EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs-Appellants Jess Anthony, Marjorie Anthony, and Linda Forbush (collectively, the “Anthony Family”) appeal the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law in favor of Defendant-Appel-lee Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (“Chevron”). The Anthony Family filed suit in state court against Chevron and several other oil companies, alleging that C

Opinion by Judge BEEZER; Concurrence by Judge W. FLETCHER. BEEZER, Circuit Judge: Hawaii Governor Benjamin J. Cayetano and Attorney General Earl I. Anzai (collectively “the State”) appeal the district court’s judgment in favor of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. Chevron filed suit for declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of Section 3(c) of Act 257 of the 1997 Hawaii State Legislature (“Act 257”).

PER CURIAM: CERTIFICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA, PURSUANT TO RULE XII OF THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA. TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA AND THE HONORABLE JUSTICES THEREOF: I. STYLE OF THE CASE The style of the cases in which certification is made is Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Plaint

MEMORANDUM RULING MELANCON, District Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion To Deny Class Certification and [alternative motion] For Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Class Action Claims, filed by plaintiffs Chevron USA, Inc., Texaco, Inc., Amerada Hess Corporation, Union Oil Company of California, Mobil Oil Corporation and Exxon Mobil Corporation (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Oil Co

W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge: This case returns to us after the Louisiana Supreme Court denied certification, Chevron USA, Inc. v. Vermilion Parish School Board, 872 So.2d 533 (La.2004), of the following question which is the subject of this appeal: Whether the notice given in this case by counsel for a lessor on behalf of the

DENNIS, Circuit Judge: The issue is whether an oil company may call upon the courts to enforce an indemnity clause requiring its oilfield service contractor to indemnify the oil company against its own negligence without affording the contractor an opportunity to show that the indemnity clause is invalid under the Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act (LOAIA). The LOAIA prohibit

MEMORANDUM * The district court provided a careful and extensive analysis of Chevron USA Inc.’s claims with respect to the Area of Mutual Interest Agreement (“the AMI”). We agree with the district court’s analysis and its grant of summary judgment in favor of Phillips Petroleum Company. We conclude that Phillips did not breach the AMI with respect to the notice requirement. The langu

128 F.Supp.2d 961 (2001) CHEVRON USA, INC. v. VERMILLION PARISH SCHOOL BOARD Texaco, Inc., et al v. Vermillion Parish School Board Amerada Hess Corp. v. Vermillion Parish School Board Union Oil Co. of California v. Vermillion Parish School Board Mobil Oil Corp., et al v. Vermillion Parish School Board Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Guidry Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Vermilion Parish School Bo

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2025 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THEIS, District Judge. This matter is before the court on the defendant’s motion to stay (Doc. 50). Chevron USA, Inc. (Chevron) seeks to stay these proceedings in federal court pending the resolution of certain issues before the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC). Chevron’s motion invokes the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Plaintiff opposes the motion to stay and requests oral arg

294 F.3d 716 CHEVRON USA INC., Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee,v.SCHOOL BOARD VERMILION PARISH, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant.Texaco Inc.; Texaco Exploration & Production Inc., Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants-Appellees,v.School Board Vermilion Parish, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant.Amerada Hess Corp., Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee,v.School Board Vermilion Parish, Defendant-Counter Claimant-