Armstrong Petroleum Corp. v. Tri-Valley Oil & Gas Co.
California Court of Appeal
[CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DAWSON, J.
After a bench trial, the superior court ruled an operator breached its obligations under an oil and gas operating agreement. The operator appeals, claiming that the breach of contract claim was barred by the statute of limitations in subdivision 1 of section 337 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1 and that lay testimony essential to the calculation of the amount of damages was based on hearsay evidence and was inadmissible. The operator asserts the breach of contract cause of action accrued when it rejected in writing the nonoperator’s interpretation of how to calculate its net…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc.California Supreme Court · 2000
- Parsons v. Bristol Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1965
- Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1990
- Brewer v. SimpsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
- City of Atascadero v. Merill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1999
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by74 opinions
- Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2013
- Regis Lutz v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2013
- CDF FIREFIGHTERS v. MaldonadoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Boon Rawd Trading International Co. v. Paleewong Trading Co.District Court, N.D. California · 2010
- Mehta v. Wells Fargo Bank, NADistrict Court, S.D. California · 2010
69 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.