Legal Opinion

Anderson v. UNITED COAL AND COKE COMPANY

Wyoming Supreme Court

Decided February 20, 1951No. 2455PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Blume, Justice.

This action brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants is an ordinary action to quiet title for the lands hereinafter mentioned, setting forth the ordinary allegations in such action. Most of the defendant made default. Judgment was entered against them quieting title to the land involved herein in the plaintiffs. The real controversy herein was with the defendant, Lawrence L. Loechner, who on December 9,1948 filed an amended answer herein in which he alleged that he entered into a lease and option agreement with one J. E. Dodds, trustee for the plaintiffs herein.…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Thompson v. CoeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1921
  2. Lehigh & Wilkes-Barre Coal Co. v. WrightSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
  3. Diamond Iron Mining Co. v. Buckeye Iron Mining Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
  4. Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v. EverhartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
  5. Nelson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1917

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Bicknell Minerals, Inc. v. TillyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1991
  2. Filtrol Corp. v. Loose Loose v. Filtrol CorpCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1954
  3. Carter v. Certain-Teed Products Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1953
  4. Wildcat Coal LLC v. Pacific Minerals IncDistrict Court, D. Wyoming · 2023
  5. Wildcat Coal LLC v. Pacific Minerals IncDistrict Court, D. Wyoming · 2023

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

Powered by the Exa API