Unocal Pipeline Company v. BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., Conoco Phillips Transportation Alaska, Inc., and Exonmobile Pipeline Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Unocal Pipeline Company v. BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., Conoco Phillips Transportation Alaska, Inc., and Exonmobile Pipeline Co.

DecidedSeptember 15, 2015

Docket01-15-00266-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Unocal Pipeline Company v. BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., Conoco Phillips Transportation Alaska, Inc., and Exonmobile Pipeline Co. (Unocal Pipeline Company v. BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., Conoco Phillips Transportation Alaska, Inc., and Exonmobile Pipeline Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Unocal Pipeline Company v. BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., Conoco Phillips Transportation Alaska, Inc., and Exonmobile Pipeline Co., (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-15-00266-CV Style: Unocal Pipeline Co. v. BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., ConocoPhillips Transportation Alaska, Inc. and ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. Date motions filed*: September 3, 2015 Type of motions: Motions to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Lara E. Romansic and Steven G. Reed Parties filing motions: Appellees BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., ConocoPhillips Transportation Alaska, Inc., and ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. Document to be filed: N/A

Is appeal accelerated? No.

Ordered that motions are:

 Granted  Denied  Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)  Other: _____________________________________ The motions to appear pro hac vice by non-resident attorneys Lara E. Romansic and Steven G. Reed are denied without prejudice to refiling with the required motions in support by a Texas resident attorney. See TEX. RULES GOVERN. BAR ADM’N, RULE XIX(b) (2015) (“The motion of the non-resident attorney seeking permission to participate in Texas proceedings must be accompanied by motion of the resident practicing Texas attorney with whom the non-resident attorney will be associated in the proceeding of a particular cause. . . .”).

Judge's signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes 

Date: February 15, 2015

November 7, 2008 Revision

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

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-15-00266-CV Style: Unocal Pipeline Co. v. BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., ConocoPhillips Transportation Alaska, Inc. and ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. Date motions filed*: September 3, 2015 Type of motions: Motions to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Lara E. Romansic and Steven G. Reed Parties filing motions: Appellees BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., ConocoPhillips Transportation Alaska, Inc., and ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. Document to be filed: N/A

Is appeal accelerated? No.

Ordered that motions are:

 Granted  Denied  Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)  Other: _____________________________________ The motions to appear pro hac vice by non-resident attorneys Lara E. Romansic and Steven G. Reed are denied without prejudice to refiling with the required motions in support by a Texas resident attorney. See TEX. RULES GOVERN. BAR ADM’N, RULE XIX(b) (2015) (“The motion of the non-resident attorney seeking permission to participate in Texas proceedings must be accompanied by motion of the resident practicing Texas attorney with whom the non-resident attorney will be associated in the proceeding of a particular cause. . . .”).

Judge's signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes 

Date: February 15, 2015

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Unocal Pipeline Company v. BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., Conoco Phillips Transportation Alaska, Inc., and Exonmobile Pipeline Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/unocal-pipeline-company-v-bp-pipelines-alaska-inc--texapp-2015.