Legal Opinion

United Mine Workers v. Thames Development, Ltd.

District Court, S.D. West Virginia

Decided May 25, 1993No. Civ. A. No. 2:92-0963PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

HADEN, Chief Judge.

Pending is the motion for summary judgment of Defendants Thames Development, Ltd. (“Thames”), and Meadow River Coal Company (“Meadow River”). The Court concludes there are no genuine issues of material fact and these Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Thames and Meadow River.

Under Rule 56(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is proper only:

“[I]f the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. United Mine Workers of America, International Union v. U.S. Steel Mining Co.District Court, D. Utah · 1986
  4. International Union, UMWA v. Eastover Min. Co.District Court, W.D. Virginia · 1985
  5. In Re Chateaugay CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1989

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Apogee Coal Co., Arch Coal Inc., and Ark Land Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
  2. The Ohio Valley Coal Company v. United Mine Workers of America International UnionDistrict Court, N.D. West Virginia · 2019

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API