Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “Eagle Industrial Plant Services Corporation”
NO. 12-22-00103-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS EAGLE RAILCAR SERVICES, L.P., § APPEAL FROM THE 3RD EAGLE RAILCAR SERVICES - ROSCOE, INC., EAGLE RAILCAR SERVICES - CAIRO, OHIO, LLC AND EAGLE RAILCAR SERVICES - WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, LLC, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
Affirmed and Opinion filed August 16, 2011. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-10-00558-CV For
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA FILED Spring 2024 Term January 30, 2024 _____________________ released at 3:00 p.m. C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK
Forest Oil Corp. v. Eagle Rock Field Services, LPpublic domain
349 S.W.3d 696 (2011) FOREST OIL CORPORATION, Appellant, v. EAGLE ROCK FIELD SERVICES, LP, Appellee. No. 14-10-00558-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.). August 16, 2011. *697 Thomas A. Zabel, Holly May Dobbs Arnold, Houston, for appellant. Gregory Preston Propes, Houston, Dennis Clarke Cameron, Tulsa, OK,
Eagle County, Colorado v. STBpublic domain
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued May 3, 2023 Decided August 18, 2023 No. 22-1019 EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENTS SEVEN COUNTY INFRASTRUCTURE COALITION AND UINTA BASIN RAILWAY, LLC,
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2024 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit
PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 605 U. S. Part 1 Pages 168–203 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT May 29, 2025 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are r
James Construction Group, LLC, Primoris Services Corporation v. Westlake Chemical Corporationpublic domain
Affirmed as Modified, and Majority and Concurring and Dissenting Opinions filed December 17, 2019. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-18-00083-CV JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC AND PRIMORIS SERVICES CORPORATION, Appellants/Cross-Appellees V. WESTLAKE CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Appellee/Cross-Appellant On Appeal from the 334t
CLARK, Justice.1 hThe issue presented in these consolidated matters arises from the sale of land to the plaintiff, who later discovered that the land was allegedly contaminated with radioactive material. The plaintiff filed suit against the former landowners and the oil and trucking companies allegedly responsible for the contamination. In the district court, exceptions of no right of action raise
NUMBER 13-18-00186-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, Appellant, v. SIGNATURE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, LLC AND JEFFRY M. OGDEN, Appellees. On appeal
JUSTICE HEARN : **258This products liability case presents a narrow question: Is Petitioner Eagle Window & Door, Inc. (Eagle) subject to successor liability for defective windows manufactured by a company who later sold its assets to Eagle in a bankruptcy sale? The answer requires us to revisit our holding in
Triad Hunter, L.L.C. v. Eagle Natrium, L.L.C.public domain
[Cite as Triad Hunter, L.L.C. v. Eagle Natrium, L.L.C., 2024-Ohio-5188.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MONROE COUNTY TRIAD HUNTER, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. EAGLE NATRIUM, LLC, ET AL.,
Keeps Eagle v. Venemanpublic domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ________________________________ ) MARILYN KEEPSEAGLE, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 99-3119 (EGS) ) TOM VILSACK, Secretary, U.S. ) Department of Agriculture, ) )
Tinch v. Video Industrial Services, Inc.public domain
497 S.E.2d 295 (1998) Frederick TINCH, Plaintiff, v. VIDEO INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC., Western Temporary Services, Inc., Hendon Engineering Associates, Inc., Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County, and Carylon Corporation, Defendant. No. COA96-155. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. March 17, 1998. *296 John A. Mraz, P
Benard v. EAGLE, INC.public domain
1 So.3d 588 (2008) Willie BENARD v. EAGLE, INC., et al. No. 2008-CA-0262. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. December 3, 2008. Rehearing Denied January 7, 2009. *589 Mickey P. Landry, Frank J. Swarr, David R. Cannella, Landry & Swarr, L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellant. Samuel
Opinion issued May 16, 2024 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-22-00313-CV ——————————— TEAM INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC., Appellant V. KELLI MOST, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL
Opinion issued May 16, 2024 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-22-00313-CV ——————————— TEAM INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC., Appellant V. KELLI MOST, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL
Opinion issued May 16, 2024 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-22-00313-CV ——————————— TEAM INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC., Appellant V. KELLI MOST, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL
OPINION JOHN M. BAILEY, JUSTICE This is a permissive appeal brought from the denial of two motions for summary judgment filed by liability insurers. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem, Code Ann. § 51.014(d) (West Supp. 2016); Tex. R. App. P. 28.3. The insurers contend that, as a matter of law, the trial court does not have .subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate claims brought directly against them
Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp.public domain
ON REHEARING GRANTED (Court composed of Judge TERRI F. LOVE, Judge MAX N. TOBIAS, JR., Judge DAVID S. GORBATY, Judge EDWIN A. LOMBARD, Judge PAUL A. BONIN). PAUL A. BONIN, Judge. _JjWe granted rehearing in this matter and assigned the rehearing to a five-judge panel constituted pursuant to La. Const, art. V, § 8. Because we conclude that our original decision is in error, we vac