Legal Opinion
The Termo Company v. Luther
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 17, 2008No. G038435PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MOORE, J.
The Director of Conservation (Director) (Pub. Resources Code, § 3003) affirmed an administrative order of the State Oil and Gas Supervisor (Supervisor) (Pub. Resources Code, § 3004) directing the plugging and abandonment of 28 oil wells. The Termo Company (Termo) and Angus Petroleum Corporation (Angus) filed petitions for administrative mandamus seeking to overturn the Director’s decision of affirmance and the underlying administrative order. The trial court denied the petitions and Termo and Angus now appeal from the trial court judgment.
Termo and Angus list many reasons why…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Fukuda v. City of AngelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- Tex-Cal Land Management, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Belridge Farms v. Agricultural Labor Relations BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Kazensky v. City of MercedCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Goat Hill Tavern v. City of Costa MesaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Ellis v. Toshiba America Information Systems., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2013
- Hardesty v. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Benetatos v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- Hardesty v. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management DistrictDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2013
- Agricultural Labor Relations Board v. Superior Court of Sacramento CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.