Legal Opinion
Bowen v. Amoco Pipeline Co.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided June 20, 2001No. 00-7039PublishedCited by 89 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
TACHA, Chief Judge.
Defendant Amoco Pipeline Company appeals from the district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
I. Background
I. Facts
In 1993, Ernest Bowen noticed an oily sheen in Flag Branch Creek, which is located on his property. After investigating the matter, the Oklahoma Corporate Commission (OCC) concluded remediation of the creek would be more detrimental than beneficial. In 1993, however, Mr. Bowen again observed a sheen in the creek, after which he notified the Pollution Control Division of the OCC, as well…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. KaplanSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by89 opinions
- Hall Street Associates, L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. BaconCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2009
- Cable Connection, Inc. v. DirecTV, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2008
- MACTEC, Inc. v. GorelickCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2005
- Puerto Rico Telephone Co. v. U.S. Phone Manufacturing Corp.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2005
84 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.