Midwest Petroleum Co. v. American Petrofina Marketing, Inc.

E.D. Missouri

Midwest Petroleum Co. v. American Petrofina Marketing, Inc.

649 F. Supp. 706

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri

DecidedDecember 9, 1986

DocketNo. 83-93C(1)

StatusPublished

This text of 649 F. Supp. 706 (Midwest Petroleum Co. v. American Petrofina Marketing, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Midwest Petroleum Co. v. American Petrofina Marketing, Inc., 649 F. Supp. 706 (E.D. Mo. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM

NANGLE, Chief Judge.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant American Petrofina Marketing’s motion for new trial or, in the alternative, motion to alter or amend findings and judgment, be and is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff be and is awarded prejudgment interest from the dates of the credit memoranda totaling $40,407.08 through October 3, 1986.

Defendant’s “newly discovered evidence” does not justify a new trial. Defendant’s evidence is of doubtful materiality and does not create any probability of a different result. With respect to the parties’ dispute over prejudgment interest, the Court notes [707]*707that defendant and plaintiff no doubt each expended significantly more than $246.58 disputing whether the prejudgment interest should be $40,407.08 or $40,160.50. This was certainly a disservice to both clients.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM

NANGLE, Chief Judge.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant American Petrofina Marketing’s motion for new trial or, in the alternative, motion to alter or amend findings and judgment, be and is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff be and is awarded prejudgment interest from the dates of the credit memoranda totaling $40,407.08 through October 3, 1986.

Defendant’s “newly discovered evidence” does not justify a new trial. Defendant’s evidence is of doubtful materiality and does not create any probability of a different result. With respect to the parties’ dispute over prejudgment interest, the Court notes [707]*707that defendant and plaintiff no doubt each expended significantly more than $246.58 disputing whether the prejudgment interest should be $40,407.08 or $40,160.50. This was certainly a disservice to both clients.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

649 F. Supp. 706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/midwest-petroleum-co-v-american-petrofina-marketing-inc-moed-1986.