Legal Opinion
Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Rutledge Oil Company
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Decided January 22, 1982No. 81-1682PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Per curiam
Rutledge Oil Company (Rutledge Oil) appeals from the district court’s 1 orders granting Missouri Pacific Railroad Company (MoPac) summary judgment on its complaint for unpaid demurrage charges and dismissing Rutledge Oil’s counterclaim for fraud. Rutledge Oil contends that the district court incorrectly concluded that its estoppel defense and counterclaim both contravened the antidiscrimination principle of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 6(7) (1976). 2
I. Background.
On May 25, 1974, a fire destroyed Rutledge Oil’s plant in Kansas City, Missouri. According to the appellant, a MoPac…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. FinkSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. SolumSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware v. Admiral CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1971
- Aero Trucking, Inc. v. Regal Tube Company, and Third Party v. William Crum, Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1979
- Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company v. Golden Triangle Wholesale Gas CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- North Penn Transfer, Inc. v. Victaulic Co. of AmericaDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1994
- Marco Supply Company, Inc. A Virginia Corporation v. At & T Communications, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1989
- Charles Paulson, D/B/A Chuck Paulson & Sons Construction v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1986
- Teleconnect Co. v. U.S. West Communications, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1993
- Paulson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1986
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.