Legal Opinion
Thomas v. Amoco Oil Co.
District Court, W.D. Louisiana
Decided March 2, 1993No. Civ. A. 88-0328PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING
NAUMAN S. SCOTT, District Judge.
Before us is a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and, in the Alternative, a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by third party defendant Woodson Construction Company (Woodson). Woodson has also filed a Motion for a More Definite Statement and a Motion to Strike.
Plaintiff Arthur Thomas (not a party here) was employed by Woodson Construction Company. Amoco Pipeline Company (Amoco) hired Woodson to perform services on a land based Amoco pipeline in Texas. The pipeline connected Amoco’s Texas City Refinery with its Texas Eastern Terminal and carried butane…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation v. Transportation Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1992
- Meloy v. Conoco, Inc.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1987
- Livings v. Service Truck Lines of Tex., Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1985
- Tanksley v. Gulf Oil Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1988
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Chesapeake Operating, Inc. v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2002
- Chesapeake Operating, Inc. v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2002
- Nabors Industries, Inc., Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., Nabors Loffland Drilling Co., Nabors Energy Services, Inc. v. Chesapeake Operating Inc. and Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2002