Search : Exxon
Number of summaries found: 57
Search For More Summaries
| Court: | U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | ERISA, Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | Scruggs v. ExxonMobil Pension Plan |
| Date: | 11/09/09 |
| Case Number: | 08-6145 |
| Summary: | In an ERISA action seeking retroactive pension and savings benefits allegedly owed to plaintiff under two of defendants' employee benefits plans, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where the plan administrator's denial of plaintiff's claim for benefits was not arbitrary or capricious because, inter alia, plaintiff was ineligible for benefits under the Plans as an independent contractor. |
| Court: | U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Administrative Law, Public Utilities |
| Title: | Exxon Mobil Corp. v. FERC |
| Date: | 07/07/09 |
| Case Number: | 07-1306 |
| Summary: | In a petition for review of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) partial denial of a credit against charges for future transmission service to Petitioner utilities, the petition is dismissed where Petitioners lacked standing because FERC's remedy did not actually require the utilities to issue transmission credits. |
| Court: | U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Injury And Tort Law, Per Curiam, Remedies |
| Title: | Baker v. Exxon Mobil Corp. |
| Date: | 06/15/09 |
| Case Number: | 04-35182 |
| Summary: | In an action for property damage based on an oil spill caused by Defendant's tanker, the District Court's order awarding post-judgment interest on punitive damages starting in 2008 is reversed, where the Supreme Court "meaningfully ascertained" Plaintiffs' entitlement to punitive damages in 1996, and thus that was the proper date from which to start the post-judgment interest. |
| Court: | U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Injury And Tort Law, Per Curiam, Remedies |
| Title: | Baker v. Exxon Mobil Corp. |
| Date: | 06/15/09 |
| Case Number: | 04-35182 |
| Summary: | In an action for property damage based on an oil spill caused by Defendant's tanker, the District Court's order awarding post-judgment interest on punitive damages starting in 2008 is reversed, where the Supreme Court "meaningfully ascertained" Plaintiffs' entitlement to punitive damages in 1996, and thus that was the proper date from which to start the post-judgment interest. |
| Court: | California Appellate Districts |
| Topic: | Environmental Law |
| Title: | Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Office of Envtl. Health Hazard Assessment |
| Date: | 01/07/09 |
| Case Number: | B204987 |
| Summary: | Agency charged with implementing Proposition 65 did not abuse its discretion in listing di-isodecyl phthalate, which is used as a plasticizer in a wide variety of PVC plastic products, as a chemical known to cause reproductive toxicity under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act. |
| Court: | California Appellate Districts |
| Topic: | Attorney's Fees, Civil Rights, Labor & Employment Law, Oil & Gas Law |
| Title: | Young v. Exxon Mobil Corp. |
| Date: | 12/11/08 |
| Case Number: | B189263 |
| Summary: | Trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees of only $1.00 to the prevailing defendant in a frivolous action brought under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, where the actual beneficiary of the attorney's fee award was a defendant to which an award could not otherwise have been made. |
| Court: | California Appellate Districts |
| Topic: | Administrative Law, Environmental Law, Government Law, Oil & Gas Law, Water Law |
| Title: | Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Exxonmobil Corp. |
| Date: | 11/20/08 |
| Case Number: | B201245 |
| Summary: | In a private enforcement action under Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (the Act), grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant-Exxonmobil is reversed and remanded where: 1) the issues in the present action were not identical to those resolved in the prior action; and 2) the trial court erred in granting full summary judgment based on res judicata. |
| Court: | U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Environmental Law, Government Law, Oil & Gas Law |
| Title: | Village of DePue v. Exxon Mobil Corp. |
| Date: | 08/11/08 |
| Case Number: | 07-2311 |
| Summary: | In a suit alleging that defendant was in violation of a village nuisance ordinance directing it to clean up a Superfund site, dismissal of claims is affirmed where: 1) federal jurisdiction existed notwithstanding a venue-selection clause in a consent order or plaintiff's Younger abstention claim; 2) the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) did not bar jurisdiction by a federal court sitting in diversity; 3) defendant failed to carry its burden of proving federal preemption of the claims; but 4) Illinois law, which established a statewide regime for protection of the environment, did preempt plaintiff's nuisance claims. |
| Court: | Supreme Court of Texas |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Contracts, Oil & Gas Law, Per Curiam, Property Law & Real Estate |
| Title: | Ford v. Exxon Mobil Chem. Co. |
| Date: | 08/31/07 |
| Case Number: | 06-0293 |
| Summary: | In a suit involving one pipeline, two litigants, three tracts, and four deeds wherein petitioner granted a pipeline easement across three tracts of land in the fourth and final deed, but then claimed he did so based on misrepresentations about the three previous deeds, a court of appeals decision finding a fraud claim barred by limitations but ordering the easement canceled and the pipeline removed is reversed as limitations barred all of petitioner's claims. |
| Court: | U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Corp. Governance, Corporation & Enterprise Law, M&A, Oil & Gas Law, Securities Law |
| Title: | In re: Exxon Mobil Corp. Sec. Litig. |
| Date: | 08/27/07 |
| Case Number: | 05-4571 |
| Summary: | In an action raising securities claims brought by former shareholders of Mobil arising from an alleged misrepresentation by Exxon made in the course of merger negotiations and voting, prior to the merger between Exxon and Mobil, dismissal of the suit is affirmed as the district court properly found it to be untimely under the relevant statutes. |