首页> 外文期刊>Oil and Gas Reporter >Pipelines: Gas Line Leak Court Jurisdiction, Procedure and Review: Res Judicata; Collateral Estoppel
【24h】

Pipelines: Gas Line Leak Court Jurisdiction, Procedure and Review: Res Judicata; Collateral Estoppel

机译:管道:天然气管道泄漏法院的管辖权,程序和审查:Res Judicata;附带禁止反言

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Duke owns and operates a gas pipeline that runs through Valley View's 450-acre ranch in Oklahoma. In October 2003, Valley View observes a pipeline leak and notifies Duke. In January 2004, after obtaining the appropriate permits to conduct a subsurface investigation, Duke notifies Valley View that it intends to install monitoring wells on the property pursuant to a claimed easement interest. However, Valley View denies Duke's contractors access to the property. The next day, Duke files an action in the state district court (the state suit) seeking injunctive relief. Duke obtains a temporary restraining order against Valley View preventing Valley View from interfering with Duke's intended operations on the property. On February 25, 2003, prior to answering the state court complaint, Valley View files an action in federal district court (the federal suit) against Duke seeking damages based on the gas line leak under the theories of trespass, nuisance, and unjust enrichment. Two days later, Valley View files answers in the state suit but does not assert any counterclaims.
机译:杜克拥有并经营着一条天然气管道,该管道贯穿俄克拉荷马州瓦利维尤(Valley View)450英亩的牧场。 2003年10月,Valley View观测到管道泄漏并通知杜克大学。 2004年1月,在获得适当的许可证进行地下调查之后,杜克大学通知Valley View,它打算根据所主张的地役权在该物业上安装监控井。但是,Valley View拒绝Duke的承包商访问该物业。第二天,杜克大学在州地方法院提起诉讼(州诉),寻求禁制令。杜克(Duke)获得了针对Valley View的临时限制令,以防止Valley View干扰Duke对该物业的预定运营。 2003年2月25日,在回应州法院的申诉之前,Valley View在联邦地方法院提起诉讼(联邦诉讼),要求杜克根据侵入,滋扰和不当得利的理论根据输气管道泄漏寻求赔偿。两天后,Valley View文件在州法院提起诉讼,但未主张任何反诉。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号