Cases

190 P.3d 28 (2008) TESORO REFINING AND MARKETING COMPANY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Washington DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent. No. 79661-1. Supreme Court of Washington. Argued January 24, 2008. Decided August 14, 2008. *30 George Carl Mastrodonato, John Benjamin Kerr Schochet, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Michael B

ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND (3) DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT DAVID ALAN EZRA, Senior District Judge. Currently before the Court is a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC (“Pl

Quinn-Brintnall, J. ¶1 — Tesoro Refining and Marketing Co. appeals a trial court’s decision granting summary judgment to the Department of Revenue (DOR) denying Tesoro a tax refund. Tesoro argues that the statute governing the relevant deduction, former RCW 82.04.433 (1985), unambiguously entitles a manufacturer that also sells certain products to take a deduction against its business and occupation (B&O) tax liability. Tesoro

Fairhurst, J. ¶1 Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company (Tesoro) seeks a refund from the Department of Revenue (DOR) for the hazardous substance tax (HST) it paid for refinery gas yielded at its Anacortes, Washington, refinery. Tesoro claims its possession of refinery gas is exempt from taxation because Tesoro uses the gas within the refinery for heat. We hold Tesoro’s use of refinery gas as a heat source constitutes a taxable posses

Filed 11/22/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE TESORO REFINING & MARKETING B288889 COMPANY LLC et al., (Los Angeles County Plaintiffs and Appellants, Super. Ct. No. BS160502) v. LOS ANGELES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, Defendant and Respondent.

246 P.3d 211 (2010) TESORO REFINING AND MARKETING COMPANY, Appellant, v. STATE of Washington, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent. No. 39417-1-II. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2. December 21, 2010. *212 George Carl Mastrodonato, Michael Barr King, Carney Badley Spellman, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Appellant. Donald F

Filed 10/2/19 See Dissenting Opinion CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO TESORO LOGISTIC OPERATIONS, LLC, E069070 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (Super.Ct.No. CIVDS1603163) CITY OF RIALTO, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 18 February 19, 2021 439 IN THE OREGON TAX COURT REGULAR DIVISION TESORO LOGISTICS NORTHWEST PIPELINE LLC, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Defendant. (TC 5252 (Control); TC 5771; TC 5292; TC 5313; TC 5350; TC 5395) On cross-motion

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge: Kevin Wallace appeals the dismissal of his retaliation claim against Tesoro Corporation (“Tesoro”). He contends that Te-soro terminated his employment for engaging in protected activity under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1514A. The district court held in part that Wallace had failed to state a claim and in part that some of the allegations had not been proper

BEVERLY REID O'CONNELL, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Currently pending before the Court are three Motions: (1) Getty Oil Company ("Getty"), Union Oil Company of California ("Union"), ENI Oil & Gas Inc. ("ENI"), and Plains All American Pipeline, L.P.'s ("Plains") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ; (2) an a

*429 OPINION AND ORDER SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) arises from claims relating to the environmental and health impact allegedly caused by MTBE,1 a water-soluble gasoline additive.2 MTBE is known to have

FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 23, 2017 Elisabeth A. Shumaker FOR THE TENT

PUBLISH FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT September 21, 2017 _________________________________ Elis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 20-119 (BAH) v. Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, et al., Defendants. BREAD FOR THE CITY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. DEPA

ORDER These matters are before the court on the Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc filed by appellants Alkon, Frank, Holyoak, Martin, and Schulman in number 15-3228. Upon consideration, the panel grants in part, and only to the extent of the modifications contained in the attached revised Opinion, that part of the request seeking panel rehearing. The Opinion filed on August 23, 2017, is hereby withdrawn, and s

Hon. M. James Lorenz, United States District Judge Pending before the Court in this putative class action alleging violation of antitrust laws is Defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff filed an opposition and Defendants replied. The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. For the

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION CORMAC J. CARNEY, District Judge I In an effort to reduce carbon monoxide and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the nation’s reliance on foreign petroleum-based fuels, Congress enacted legislation in 2005 mandating the increased use of renewable fuels in the transportation sector. Rather than requiring obligated parties to directly generate their requisite quota o

493 F.Supp.2d 1365 (2007) In Re MOTOR FUEL TEMPERATURE SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION. No. 1840. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. June 18, 2007. Before WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman, D. LOWELL JENSEN, J. FREDERICK MOTZ,[*] ROBERT L. MILLER, Jr.,[*] KATHRYN H. VRATIL, DAVID R. HANSEN and ANTHONY J. SCIRICA, Judges of the Panel.

RODNEY GILSTRAP, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court is Google LLC's ("Google") Second Renewed Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1406 for Improper Venue. (Dkt. No. 125) ("the Motion"). Having considered the Motion, the Court is of the opinion that it should be D

ACCEPTED 15-25-00120-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 10/16/2025 11:54 AM No. 15-25-000120-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE