Cases

Eldon E. Fallon, U.S. District Court Judge *623Before the Court are two motions to dismiss without prejudice filed by Plaintiffs *624Herman LeBlanc, R. Doc. 569, and Donnie Beasley, R. Doc. 572. The motions are opposed. R. Doc. 579. Plaintiffs have filed a reply. R. Doc. 590. Havin

VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge: *686Running roughshod over the adage that the best defense is a good offense, Exxon Mobil Corporation ("Exxon") has sued the Attorneys General of Massachusetts and New York (collectively "the AGs"),1 each of whom has an open investigation of Exxon. The AGs are investiga

HOLDRIDGE, J. This is a tort suit wherein the plaintiffs seek to recover damages for the decedent's lung cancer and death allegedly caused in total or in part by his exposure to radioactive dust from cleaning oilfield pipes. A motion for summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendants dismissing the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice due to a lack of proof of medical causation because of the fact that the decedent was a lifel

ORDER ED KINKEADE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiff Exxon Mobil Corporation’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 8) and Defendant Attorney General Hea-ley’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 41) are under advisement with the Court. Plaintiff Exxon Mobil Corporation (“Exxon”) moves to enjoin Defendant Attorney General Maura Tracy Healey of Massachusetts from enforcing the civil investigative dem

374 F.Supp.2d 406 (2005) Kimberly SMITH, Plaintiff, v. EXXON MOBIL CORP., Independent Oil Workers at Paulsboro, New Jersey, and John Does 1-20, Defendants. Civil Action No. 02-4425 (JEI). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. June 27, 2005. *407 *408 *409</

ORDER DAVID HITTNER, District Judge. Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Count V of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Document No. 18). Having considered the motion, submissions, and applicable law, the Court determines that the motion should be denied. I. BACKGROUND This case involves a trademark dispute between

OPINION and ORDER SMITH, Senior Judge. During World War II, the United States required massive quantities of 100-octane aviation gasoline (“avgas”) for use in airplane engines. The Government considered avgas to be a “superfuel” that allowed airplanes to fly with more power, speed, quicker take-off, and was essential to victory in combat. The critical need for avgas prompted the Government to o

Motion for reargument or leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Peradotto, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.

Motion for reargument or leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Peradotto, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.

Blanche Taylor Morgan and her two adult children, Kenneth Morgan and Ellen Morgan Caudle (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the Morgans"), appeal from summary judgments in favor of Exxon Corporation ("Exxon"), Mobil Oil Corporation ("Mobil"), and Marshall Oglesby (Exxon, Mobil, and Marshall Oglesby are hereinafter referred to collectively as "the Companies") in the Morgans' action against the Companies for damages allegedly resulting from the operation of oil wells on the Morga

35 So.3d 191 (2010) M.J. FARMS, LTD. v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Tensas Delta Land Company, Missiana, LLC, Benedict Corporation, LW., Wickes Agent Corporation, JMR Oil Company, Inc. and Wagner Oil Company. No. 2009-CC-2414. Supreme Court of Louisiana. March 12, 2010. Rehearing Denied May 7, 2010.[*] Blanchard, Walker, O'Quin & Roberts

PER CURIAM: Appellant Anastasia Cruises, Inc. (“Anastasia”), is a debtor in bankruptcy. Esso Nederland B.V. (“Esso”) had a claim against Anastasia in the amount of $106,748.91 for marine lubricant products sold and delivered to Anastasia. Esso assigned the claim to Pied Rich B.V. (“Pied Rich”), a Dutch company, for $10,000 consideration and retained a contingency interest of $40,000 in the event Pied Rich collected $100,00

BOLIN, Justice. This case has been before this Court on two prior occasions. See Exxon Corp. v. Department of Conservation & Natural Res., 859 So.2d 1096 (Ala.2002), and Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Alabama Dep’t of Conservation & Natural Res., 986 So.2d 1093 (Ala.2007), for a detailed statement of the history and factual background of the case. In 1981 and again in 1984 Exxon Mobil Corpora

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: THE EXXON VALDEZ,  GRANT BAKER; SEA HAWK SEAFOODS, INC.; COOK INLET PROCESSORS INC.; SAGAYA CORP.; WILLIAM MCMURREN; PATRICK L. MCMURREN; WILLIAM W. KING; GEORGE C. NORRIS; HUNTER CRANZ; No. 04-35182 RICHARD FEENSTRA; WILDERNESS SAILING SAFARIS; SEAFOOD SALES,  D.C. No. CV-89-00095-HRH INC.; RAPID SYSTEMS PACI

112 Cal.Rptr.2d 751 (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1347 EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA et al, Defendants and Appellants. No. B146471. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six. October 22, 2001. As Modified November 19, 2001. *753 I Stephen Shane

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 23-1859 ____________ LINDSEY GULDEN; DAMIAN BURCH, Appellants v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION ____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

In 2005, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act ("EPACT"), which phased out the RFG oxygenate requirement and established the Renewable Fuel Program in its place. See Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, §§ 1501, 1504, 119 Stat. 594 (2005). The new program requires gasoline suppliers to blend their product with renewable fuels, suc

City of New York v Exxon Mobil Corp. (2025 NY Slip Op 25011) [*1] City of New York v Exxon Mobil Corp. 2025 NY Slip Op 25011 Decided on January 14, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Patel, J. Published b

City of New York v Exxon Mobil Corp. (2025 NY Slip Op 25011) [*1] City of New York v Exxon Mobil Corp. 2025 NY Slip Op 25011 Decided on January 14, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Patel, J. Published b

24-1568-cv The City of New York v. Exxon Mobil Corp. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 2024 (Argued: March 4, 2025 Decided: October 3, 2025) Docket No. 24-1568-cv THE CITY OF NEW YORK,