Legal Opinion
Clarke County Commission v. Pruet Production Co.
District Court, S.D. Alabama
Decided March 31, 1997No. Civil Action Nos. 96-0578-RV-S, 96-0579-RV-M, 96-0581-RV-C, 96-0582-RV-C, 96-0584-RV-CPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER1
VOLLMER, District Judge.
Presently before the court is defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss (Doc. 2 and 4) with a supporting memorandum (Doc. 5). Plaintiff has filed a memorandum in opposition (Doe. 7) that was met in return by a reply memorandum from defendants (Doc. 10).2 Subsequently, plaintiff filed a response memorandum (Doc. 15). Defendants rounded out the briefing by submitting a “supplemental filing” (Doe. 18) which contains additional legal authority for their position. As explained below, the court finds that defendants’ motion to dismiss is due to be granted.
This action…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Doremus v. Workers' Comp. Self-InsurersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1996
- George v. Federal Land Bank of JacksonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1986
- Montgomery v. SparksSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
- State v. Colonial Refrigerated Transportation, Inc.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1971
- Powers v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1938
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. Amerada Hess CorporationCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2000
- Choctaw County v. Pruet ProductionCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1998
- Clarke County v. Pruet ProductionCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1998
- Escambia County v. Amerada HessCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1998
- Monroe Country v. Torch OperatingCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1998
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.