King & King Enterprises v. Champlin Petroleum Co.
District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ ,. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT
MORRIS, Chief Judge.
In its order of December 13, 1977 the court directed the parties to submit materials relevant to third-party defendant Entriken’s period of employment with Champlin so as to enable the court to rule on plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend for the purpose of adding Dewey Mason and Mickey Bowles as parties defendant. Defendant has furnished the deposition of Entriken and plaintiffs have submitted their proposed amended complaint. In addition several briefs have been filed setting forth the parties’…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Holmberg v. ArmbrechtSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corporation, Manhattan-Ward, Incorporated v. Grinnell Corporation, 1225 Vine Street Building, Inc. v. Grinnell CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974
- Bailey v. GloverSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- John H. Freeman, Jr., D/B/A Freeman Electric Gin Company v. Continental Gin CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1967
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- King & King Enterprises, D/B/A King Gas & Oil and Carl R. King, D/B/A King Gas & Oil v. Champlin Petroleum CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1981
- Simmons Oil Corporation (A/k/a David Christopher Corporation) v. Tesoro Petroleum CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- Samuel B. Ballen v. Prudential Bache Securities, Inc. Prudential Bache Properties, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1994
- Clark v. Airesearch Manufacturing Co. of Arizona, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1983
- Stutz Motor Car of America, Inc. v. Reebok International, Ltd.District Court, C.D. California · 1995
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.