Petrolite Corporation, Cross-Appellee v. Betz Laboratories, Inc., Betz Process Chemicals, Inc., William C. Brafford, and John F. McCaughan Cross-Appellants

Sixth Circuit

Petrolite Corporation, Cross-Appellee v. Betz Laboratories, Inc., Betz Process Chemicals, Inc., William C. Brafford, and John F. McCaughan Cross-Appellants

865 F.2d 1269, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 113

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 9, 1989

Docket88-5156

StatusUnpublished

This text of 865 F.2d 1269 (Petrolite Corporation, Cross-Appellee v. Betz Laboratories, Inc., Betz Process Chemicals, Inc., William C. Brafford, and John F. McCaughan Cross-Appellants) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Petrolite Corporation, Cross-Appellee v. Betz Laboratories, Inc., Betz Process Chemicals, Inc., William C. Brafford, and John F. McCaughan Cross-Appellants, 865 F.2d 1269, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 113 (6th Cir. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

865 F.2d 1269

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
PETROLITE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee,
v.
BETZ LABORATORIES, INC., Betz Process Chemicals, Inc.,
William C. Brafford, and John F. McCaughan,
Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants.

Nos. 88-5156, 88-5157.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Jan. 9, 1989.

Before KEITH and KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judges; and LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF, District Judge*.

PER CURIAM.

Petrolite Corporation (Petrolite), plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee, has appealed the decision of the district court which granted summary judgment in favor of Betz Laboratories (Betz), defendant-appellee/cross-appellant, in this declaratory judgment action initiated to determine the meaning of a phrase employed in a settlement agreement previously entered by these two parties.

A review of the parties' assignments of error, the briefs of the parties, and the arguments of counsel demonstrates that the district court properly concluded that the term "physical plant location" unambiguously referred to "all customer facilities at a particular geographic location, including both the manufacturing and office facilities." Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Betz's motion for attorney fees pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. Accordingly, the grant of summary judgment in favor of Betz and the denial of its request for attorney fees is AFFIRMED for the reasons stated by District Judge Bertelsman in his orders of May 8, 1986, and December 15, 1987, respectively.

*

The Honorable Lawrence P. Zatkoff, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation

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

865 F.2d 1269

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
PETROLITE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee,
v.
BETZ LABORATORIES, INC., Betz Process Chemicals, Inc.,
William C. Brafford, and John F. McCaughan,
Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants.

Nos. 88-5156, 88-5157.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Jan. 9, 1989.

Before KEITH and KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judges; and LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF, District Judge*.

PER CURIAM.

Petrolite Corporation (Petrolite), plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee, has appealed the decision of the district court which granted summary judgment in favor of Betz Laboratories (Betz), defendant-appellee/cross-appellant, in this declaratory judgment action initiated to determine the meaning of a phrase employed in a settlement agreement previously entered by these two parties.

A review of the parties' assignments of error, the briefs of the parties, and the arguments of counsel demonstrates that the district court properly concluded that the term "physical plant location" unambiguously referred to "all customer facilities at a particular geographic location, including both the manufacturing and office facilities." Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Betz's motion for attorney fees pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. Accordingly, the grant of summary judgment in favor of Betz and the denial of its request for attorney fees is AFFIRMED for the reasons stated by District Judge Bertelsman in his orders of May 8, 1986, and December 15, 1987, respectively.

*

The Honorable Lawrence P. Zatkoff, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

865 F.2d 1269, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petrolite-corporation-cross-appellee-v-betz-laboratories-inc-betz-ca6-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack