Legal Opinion

Stanley v. CONOCOPHILLIPS PIPE LINE CO.

District Court, D. Kansas

Decided September 12, 2006No. 05-cv-02277-CMPublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MURGUIA, District Judge.

I.INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Angela Stanley brings this negligence action against defendant Conoco-Phillips Pipe Line Company. The case is now before the court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 47). Defendant asks this court to find that defendant did not owe plaintiff a duty to warn or a duty to train. Because the facts needed to determine whether defendant owed a duty to warn are disputed, summary judgment is denied on the duty to warn negligence claim. However, because the court has not found. any Kansas law creating a duty to train…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1998
  5. Nero v. Kansas State UniversitySupreme Court of Kansas · 1993

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. In re Dicamba Herbicides Litig.District Court, E.D. Missouri · 2019

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API