Legal Opinion · Concurring in the judgment

Ackerman v. Exxonmobil Corp.

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Decided August 7, 2013No. 12-1103Published

1Concurring in the judgmentDuncan, Circuit Judge

I admire the majority’s deft circumnavigation of serious errors of fact and law in pursuit of an ultimately defensible result. I write separately because the district court’s errors were so many and of such significance that I cannot share the majority’s confidence that they did not contribute to that result. More importantly, I believe that leaving those errors not only unaddressed but unacknowledged will allow, if not encourage, their repetition.

My fundamental concern with the majority’s opinion is that in its magnanimity to a profoundly flawed disposition below, it omits critical facts at…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. McFarland v. ScottSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  3. Mitchum v. FosterSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  4. Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  5. Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977

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

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

Powered by the Exa API