Legal Opinion
In Re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation
District Court, D. Kansas
Decided February 21, 2008No. MDL No. 1840. No. 07-MD-1840-KHVPublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC
KATHRYN H. VRATIL, District Judge.
Plaintiffs assert putative class action claims for damages and injunctive relief against various motor fuel retailers in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, the District of Columbia and Guam (“the Region”). 1 Plaintiffs claim that because defendants sell motor fuel for a specified price per gallon…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Hall v. BellmonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1991
- Zinermon v. BurchSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices LitigationDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2010
- Rezac Livestock Commission Co. v. Pinnacle BankDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2017
- Vestring v. HallaDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2013
- Berera v. MESA Medical Group, PLLCDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2013
- Chastain v. HodgdonDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2016
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.