Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Ford

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Decided February 9, 2012No. 1804Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

EYLER, JAMES R., J.,

concurring and dissenting, in which HOTTEN, J., joins.

These consolidated cases arise from the leakage of gasoline from a gasoline service station, located at the corner of Jarrettsville Pike and Paper Mill Road in the Jacksonville area of Baltimore County. The station was owned by Exxon-Mobil Corporation, appellant. The leak occurred, on January 13, 2006, when a contractor accidentally drilled a hole in an underground gas line leading from a storage tank to the dispensing pump. An electronic leak detector sounded an alarm. The contractor who responded to the alarm…

2Cases cited118 opinions

  1. Consolidated Rail Corporation v. GottshallSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  2. In Re Paoli Railroad Yard Pcb LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
  3. Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.California Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Payton v. Abbott LabsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
  5. Brzoska v. OlsonSupreme Court of Delaware · 1995

113 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