Shell Pipe Line Corp.

Court of Claims

Shell Pipe Line Corp.

578 F.2d 1389, 216 Ct. Cl. 411, 11 ERC (BNA) 1385, 1978 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 76

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedMarch 17, 1978

DocketNo. 108-75

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 578 F.2d 1389 (Shell Pipe Line Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shell Pipe Line Corp., 578 F.2d 1389, 216 Ct. Cl. 411, 11 ERC (BNA) 1385, 1978 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 76 (cc 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Oil spillage; cleanup costs; burden of proof; act of God; act of third party; negligent omission of plaintiff’s personnel.— Plaintiff seeks to recover the cost of removing oil from the Trinity River and its banks that spilled into the river from a pipeline owned and operated by plaintiff as the result of a rupture on February 14, 1974. Plaintiff contends that the spillage was caused solely by an act of the Trinity River Authority of Texas or was caused by an act of said authority in combination with an act of God. On November 25, 1977 Trial Judge Mastin G. White filed a recommended decision holding that plaintiff had failed to establish its right to recover. On March 17, 1978 the court sitting as a panel composed of Judges Davis, Kunzig and Bennett, entered an order stating that it agreed with the trial judge’s recommended decision and that it adopted the decision as the basis for its judgment dismissing the petition.

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

Oil spillage; cleanup costs; burden of proof; act of God; act of third party; negligent omission of plaintiff’s personnel.— Plaintiff seeks to recover the cost of removing oil from the Trinity River and its banks that spilled into the river from a pipeline owned and operated by plaintiff as the result of a rupture on February 14, 1974. Plaintiff contends that the spillage was caused solely by an act of the Trinity River Authority of Texas or was caused by an act of said authority in combination with an act of God. On November 25, 1977 Trial Judge Mastin G. White filed a recommended decision holding that plaintiff had failed to establish its right to recover. On March 17, 1978 the court sitting as a panel composed of Judges Davis, Kunzig and Bennett, entered an order stating that it agreed with the trial judge’s recommended decision and that it adopted the decision as the basis for its judgment dismissing the petition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

578 F.2d 1389, 216 Ct. Cl. 411, 11 ERC (BNA) 1385, 1978 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 76, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shell-pipe-line-corp-cc-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack