Your document has been successfully saved!

Search through millions of court cases, regulations, statutes and more...

Search for
Boolean Connector Use Result
AND Sleep AND Fall Records with both “Slip” and “Fall”
OR Lee OR Grant Records with either “Lee” or “Grant”
NOT Transaction NOT Fee Records that contain “Transaction” but exclude “Fee”
( ) (Tree OR Shrub) AND Fall Records containing “Tree” or “Shrub”, and the word “Fall”
" " "Capital Punishment" Records containing the exact phrase “Capital Punishment”
* Affirm* Records containing variations of the root word (such as “Affirmed”, “Affirming”, “Affirmation”, and etc…)
? Connect?r Records that contain single letter variations (such as “Connector” and “Connecter”)
Jurisdiction: Alabama Southern District Court
Decision Date: 3/11/1986

STATES

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            FEDERAL

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Harris v. Huffco Petroleum Corp. Harris v. Huffco Petroleum Corp., 633 F. Supp. 250 (S.D. Ala., 1986)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        633 F. Supp. 250

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Jay D. HARRIS, et al Plaintiffs,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        v.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        HUFFCO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, et al Defendants.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Ci
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        v.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        A. No. 85-1538-H.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        United States District Court, S. D. Alabama, S. D.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        March 11, 1986.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        633 F. Supp. 250

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Jay D. HARRIS, et al Plaintiffs, v. HUFFCO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, et al Defendants.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Ci v. A. No. 85-1538-H.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        United States District Court, S. D. Alabama, S. D.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        March 11, 1986.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        633 F. Supp. 251

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        633 F. Supp. 252

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Rae M. Crowe, David A. Bagwell, Armbrecht, Jackson, DeMouy, Crowe, Holmes & Reeves, Mobile, Ala for defendants.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ORDER

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                HAND, Chief Judge.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                In this case this Court is confronted yet again with an ingenious attempt to manipulate the removal statutes to the advantage of a foreign corporation displeased by the prospect of defending a lawsuit in the Alabama state court system at the side of a resident ally. This particular action was filed in the Circuit Court for Escambia County, Alabama, on November 20, 1985. An amended complaint was filed on December 13, 1985, and the removal petition was filed in this Court on December 19, 1985.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                The plaintiff's state court complaint, which was not significantly altered by the amendment, alleged five causes of action against two defendants. Plaintiff Jay D. Harris sued Huffco Petroleum Corporation (Huffco) for malicious prosecution, malicious harassment, and breach of contract. Plaintiff Jay D. Harris sued both Huffco and defendant Woodrow Hobson, Jr for slander. Plaintiff Gertrude E. Harris sued both defendants for loss of consortium.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Huffco's removal petition alleged diversity of citizenship as the basis for jurisdiction. The complaint alleged that Huffco is a corporation with its principal place of business in Texas, and that Hobson is a citizen of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama. The removal petition agrees that Huffco's principal place of business is Texas, and alleges that it is organized under the laws of Delaware. Defendant Hobson, however, does not exactly allege his own citizenship. Basically, defendants contend that Hobson is a citizen of Florida if plaintiff Jay D. Harris is a citizen of Alabama. They also contend that plaintiff is actually a citizen of California, thus creating diversity of citizenship between him and Hobson whether Hobson is a citizen of Alabama or Florida. Alternatively, defendants contend that Hobson was fraudulently joined as a party defendant to defeat removal, and that his

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        633 F. Supp. 253

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Initially, however, the Court notes that removal is a purely statutory remedy, authorized by 28 U.S.C. 1441. Section 1441(a) authorizes defendants alone to effect removal, while subsection b authorizes the removal of cases based on complete diversity, if none of the defendants is a citizen of the state in which the action is brought. 28 U.S.C. 1441(b); Martin v. Snyder, 148 U.S. 663, 13 S. Ct. 706, 37 L. Ed. 602 (1893). As the right of removal is statutory, the statute must be strictly construed to limit federal jurisdiction and prevent encroachment on the state court's right to decide cases properly brought before it, especially in diversity cases. The removing defendant or defendants bear the burden of establishing the right to invoke federal jurisdiction.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                I

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Turning first to the question of whether there exists diversity of citizenship, the Court observes that the defendant has not alleged that he is a citizen of Alabama, but only that if the plaintiff is allowed to maintain a domicile in Alabama but a residence in California, then defendant should be allowed to maintain a domicile in Florida and a residence in Alabama. These contentions stem from the fact that the plaintiff, while answering certain deposition questions in July of 1985, stated that he lived in California. The defendant contends that plaintiff Jay Harris and defendant Hobson are each engaged in the business acquisition of mineral leasehold interests, requiring continual movement about the country while maintaining a constant domicile. Thus, according to defendants, plaintiffs' assertion of California residence in July, but Alabama domicile in November, obliges the Court to find that Hobson, in November, was a citizen of Florida, or that plaintiff is a citizen of California. This is fallacious. First, this argument attempts to justify diversity now on the basis of a situation allegedly existing in July of 1985. The relevant inquiry is where Hobson's domicile was at the time the complaint was filed in November of 1985. As this fact was fully available to defendants at the time removal was filed, and keeping in mind that the defendants bear the burden of demonstrating removability, the defendants' allegations have failed to demonstrate, or even allege, that Hobson was a citizen of a state other than Alabama. Second, the plaintiff's citizenship is quite irrelevant. Even if plaintiff is a citizen of California, (and plaintiff has presented substantial evidence of Alabama citizenship that defendants have not rebutted), if Hobson is a citizen of Alabama, removal is barred by section 1441(b). 28 U.S.C. 1441(b); Martin v. Snyder, supra. Finally,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        633 F. Supp. 254

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                II

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                The defendants' alternative reason for claiming proper removal is that Hobson was fraudulently joined for purposes of defeating federal diversity jurisdiction and preventing removal. Impressed upon the removal statutes by various court decisions, the fraudulent pleading theory prevents wily plaintiffs' attorneys from circumventing removal by joining citizens of the forum state whose only guilt is having associated with the real defendant, who for some reason invariably dislike litigating in the plaintiff's backyard as much as plaintiffs' attorneys seem to dislike federal court.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Defendants in this action, faced with the Hobson's choice of litigating the admittedly ersatz claims presented in several counts of the complaint in Escambia County Circuit Court, or attempting to invoke this Court's jurisdiction via removal, chose to try and show that the slander claim is so specious that no Alabama court would ever entertain it. For this is essentially the burden on removing defendants seeking to prove fraudulent joinder.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Coker v. Amoco Oil Co 709 F.2d 1433 1440 (11th Cir. 1983). See also B Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co 663 F.2d 545, 549 (5th Cir. 1981); Keating v. Shell Chem. Co 610 F.2d 328 332 (5th Cir. 1980); Bobby Jones Garden Apts Inc. v. Suleski, 391 F.2d 172 177 (5th Cir. 1968). While Coker dealt with the specific fact of whether fictitious parties were fraudulently joined, the essential analysis of such cases is the same. In this action, defendants mount a dual attack on the viability of plaintiff's slander claim, which is all that involves Hobson in this case.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Defendants first contend that the allegations in the complaint only make out a claim of slander per quod under Alabama law, thus requiring the pleading of special damages. According to defendants, the complaint does not plead special damages with sufficient particularity and thus no

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        633 F. Supp. 255

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Plaintiff's Complaint, Count Two, page 2.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                In Harrison, supra, the plaintiff alleged slander per quod, and the following damage allegation was found sufficient: "plaintiff was caused to suffer great mental pain and anguish, was caused to be embarrassed and chagrined, and her credit and financial standing in the city of Birmingham was greatly impaired, all to her damage. " 212 Ala. at 672, 103 So. at 843. This language is virtually identical to the language used by plaintiff in his complaint. This Court would be hard pressed to rule that language held sufficient by the Supreme Court of Alabama is yet so blatantly ineffective that no Alabama court would do ought more than dismiss it for failure to state a claim. To so hold would be to poach upon the territory of a judicial system that is coequal with this Court under our federal system. See, e. g B Inc supra, 663 F.2d at 548. This Court will not so poach.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Defendants' other ground for claiming fraudulent joinder is that the plaintiff's slander claim is barred by one of several principles related to res judicata. This case arose out of a prior suit by Huffco against plaintiff Jay D. Harris, filed in state court in Escambia County, involving title to certain oil and gas leases. Harris counterclaimed for breach of contract, fraud, tortious interference with contract, and damages from the issuance of a temporary restraining order. Harris prevailed after a jury trial, then filed this action. While defendants raise vociferous contentions that all of Harris' claims herein are barred by not having been presented in the prior case, the Court will only concern itself with the slander claim, which is the barrier to federal jurisdiction.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Defendants' argument of preclusion is based on two theories: res judicata and rule preclusion. The res judicata branch is based on Owens v. Miller, 414 So. 2d 889 (Ala. 1981). Therein, the Alabama Supreme Court states that the doctrine of res judicata prevents a litigant "from relitigating any matter that could have been litigated in the prior action, regardless of whether the matter was actually presented. " 414 So. 2d at 890. After quoting this language, defendants' brief goes on to state that the slander claim arose out of the same circumstances as the plaintiff's earlier counterclaim of tortious interference with contract. The defendants conclude by stating that "the mere fact that this slander claim could have been litigated is sufficient under Alabama law to bar the current assertion of this claim. See Owens, 414 So. 2d 889. " Defendants' Brief at 6. The Court is not persuaded, however. First, the last statement by defendants' brief is simply not

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        633 F. Supp. 256

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Defendants' rule preclusion assault on this claim is equally ineffective. Ala. R. Ci v. P. 13(a) requires any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim to be asserted as a compulsory counterclaim. The original case was filed by Huffco seeking to determine title to certain oil leases, and to recover damages for the interference by Harris with Huffco's contracts. In order for this slander claim to be the basis of a compulsory counterclaim, the allegedly slanderous statements would have to have arisen out of the same transaction or occurrences as did Huffco's claims, not, as defendants seem to argue, out of the same set of circumstances giving rise to Harris' counterclaim for tortious interference with contracts. Whether that counterclaim was a compulsory counterclaim is a question the Court finds no need to address. The previous discussion of res judicata demonstrates that it is not evident from the face of the complaint and the prior case's pleadings that the slander claim arose out of the same set of facts as did that case. The fact that this interpretation may appear to be the most likely one is, again, irrelevant. This Court is not to delve into the factual background of the allegedly fraudulently joined claim to determine if a state court would dismiss it out of hand. See B Inc supra. That a state court may eventually find the various allegations to have arisen from such an intertwined series of events as to constitute compulsory counterclaims is not important. This Court finds that the slander claim does not require automatic dismissal on the grounds of rule preclusion.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                A final word on preclusion. This Court, as already hinted, is not allowed to go rummaging about in the legal attic covering the finality, or preclusive effect, of state court decisions. Such a delicate area is best left to the state courts, who have the right, and the first obligation, to say what the law in Alabama is.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                In light of the above discussion, the Court must hold the slander claim to be not

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        633 F. Supp. 257

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                The Court does attend to two final housecleaning matters. Defendants had filed a motion for an extension of time to complete and file the transcript of the original state court trial in order to offer proof on the res judicata effect of that judgment on Harris' breach of contract claim. The motion is MOOT. Whether that claim is barred is irrelevant to the jurisdictional questions addressed in this Order, which deal with the only joint claim. Secondly, a letter from counsel for defendants on January 23 requested additional time to allow the filing of an affidavit showing diversity of citizenship. Over a month has passed, and as previously noted, no affidavit has been filed. This letter motion is also MOOT.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Pursuant to the above discussion, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for REMAND is GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED that this case was removed improvidently, and without jurisdiction, and it is to be REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Escambia County, Alabama, forthwith, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(c).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        --------

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Notes:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                1Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 2 L. Ed. 435 (1806).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                2Shamrock Oil Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 61 S. Ct. 868 85 L. Ed. 1214 (1941). See also Voors v. Nat'l Women's Health Org Inc 611 F. Supp. 203 (N.D. Ind. 1985); Auto Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Interstate Agency, Inc 525 F. Supp. 1104 (D. S.C. 1981).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                3Town of Freedom, Oklahoma v. Muskogee Bridge Co 466 F. Supp. 75 (W. D. Okla. Crim. 1978).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                4Auto Ins. Agency, Inc supra note 2.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                5Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 305 U.S. 534 540, 59 S. Ct. 347 350, 83 L. Ed. 334, 339 (1939); B Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co 663 F.2d 545 (5th Cir. 1981); Weaver v. Miller Electric Mfg. Co 616 F. Supp. 683 685 (S. D. Ala. 1985).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                6The parties agree that the citizenship of Mrs. Harris is identical to that of Mr. Harris.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                7While residence is not determinative of citizenship, domicile and citizenship are synonymous. See Williamson v. Osenton, 232 U.S. 619, 34 S. Ct. 442, 55 L. Ed. 758 (1914).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                8See supra note 5.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                9Plaintiff filed a sworn affidavit and copies of his driver's license, utility bills and phone deposit receipt.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                10Again, this is a fact within the defendants' knowledge since the time of the complaint's filing, so there is nothing unfair with charging them with knowledge of this fact. See Nicholas v. Macneille, 492 F. Supp. 1046 (D. S.C. 1980); Horak v. Color Metal of Zurich, Switzerland, 285 F. Supp. 603 (D. N. J. 1968).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                11See, e. g Bobby Jones Garden Apts Inc. v. Suleski, 391 F.2d 172 176 (5th Cir. 1968).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                12The Court notes, without malice, that foreign corporations seem to be the most fond of federal court jurisdiction.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                13Decisions of the former Fifth Circuit were adopted as binding precedent in this Circuit by Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981), but former Fifth cases from Unit A of that Circuit decided after September 30, 1981 are only persuasive. Stein v. Reynolds Sec Inc 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                14Mrs. Harris' claim of loss of consortium is purely derivative from Mr. Harris' claims, and is thus wiped out for purposes of jurisdiction, by a decision that the slander claim is fraudulent.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                15While Alabama has adopted Rules of Civil Procedure providing for notice pleading, see Ala. R. Ci v. P. 8(a); Dempsey v. Denman, 442 So. 2d 63 (Ala. 1983); "items of special damage . . . shall be specifically stated. " Ala. R. Ci v. P. 9(g); Ceravolo v. Brown, 364 So. 2d 1155 (Ala. 1978) (slander claim without special damages plea must make out claim of slander per se).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                16Huffco apparently invoked state jurisdiction to take advantage of Alabama's liberal fictitious party pleading practice, see Ala. R. Ci v. P. 9(h), thereby obtaining its distaste for Alabama state courts firsthand.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                17See discussion, supra, at text accompanying notes 2-4.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Notes:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                1Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 2 L. Ed. 435 (1806).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                2Shamrock Oil Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 61 S. Ct. 868 85 L. Ed. 1214 (1941). See also Voors v. Nat'l Women's Health Org Inc 611 F. Supp. 203 (N.D. Ind. 1985); Auto Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Interstate Agency, Inc 525 F. Supp. 1104 (D. S.C. 1981).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                3Town of Freedom, Oklahoma v. Muskogee Bridge Co 466 F. Supp. 75 (W. D. Okla. Crim. 1978).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                4Auto Ins. Agency, Inc supra note 2.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                5Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 305 U.S. 534 540, 59 S. Ct. 347 350, 83 L. Ed. 334, 339 (1939); B Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co 663 F.2d 545 (5th Cir. 1981); Weaver v. Miller Electric Mfg. Co 616 F. Supp. 683 685 (S. D. Ala. 1985).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                6The parties agree that the citizenship of Mrs. Harris is identical to that of Mr. Harris.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                7While residence is not determinative of citizenship, domicile and citizenship are synonymous. See Williamson v. Osenton, 232 U.S. 619, 34 S. Ct. 442, 55 L. Ed. 758 (1914).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                8See supra note 5.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                9Plaintiff filed a sworn affidavit and copies of his driver's license, utility bills and phone deposit receipt.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                10Again, this is a fact within the defendants' knowledge since the time of the complaint's filing, so there is nothing unfair with charging them with knowledge of this fact. See Nicholas v. Macneille, 492 F. Supp. 1046 (D. S.C. 1980); Horak v. Color Metal of Zurich, Switzerland, 285 F. Supp. 603 (D. N. J. 1968).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                11See, e. g Bobby Jones Garden Apts Inc. v. Suleski, 391 F.2d 172 176 (5th Cir. 1968).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                12The Court notes, without malice, that foreign corporations seem to be the most fond of federal court jurisdiction.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                13Decisions of the former Fifth Circuit were adopted as binding precedent in this Circuit by Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981), but former Fifth cases from Unit A of that Circuit decided after September 30, 1981 are only persuasive. Stein v. Reynolds Sec Inc 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                14Mrs. Harris' claim of loss of consortium is purely derivative from Mr. Harris' claims, and is thus wiped out for purposes of jurisdiction, by a decision that the slander claim is fraudulent.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                15While Alabama has adopted Rules of Civil Procedure providing for notice pleading, see Ala. R. Ci v. P. 8(a); Dempsey v. Denman, 442 So. 2d 63 (Ala. 1983); "items of special damage . . . shall be specifically stated. " Ala. R. Ci v. P. 9(g); Ceravolo v. Brown, 364 So. 2d 1155 (Ala. 1978) (slander claim without special damages plea must make out claim of slander per se).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                16Huffco apparently invoked state jurisdiction to take advantage of Alabama's liberal fictitious party pleading practice, see Ala. R. Ci v. P. 9(h), thereby obtaining its distaste for Alabama state courts firsthand.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                17See discussion, supra, at text accompanying notes 2-4.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        --------

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Cited By
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Cites
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        B., Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., 663 F.2d 545 (5th Cir., 1981)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Decision Date: 1981-12-10 Citations: 54
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Keating v. Shell Chemical Co., 610 F.2d 328 (5th Cir., 1980)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Decision Date: 1980-01-24 Citations: 12
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Wanner v. Satran, 633 F. Supp. 257 (D.S.D., 1986)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Decision Date: 1986-03-12 Citations: 18
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Nicholas v. Macneille, 492 F. Supp. 1046 (D.S. Ct., 1980)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Decision Date: 1980-07-25 Citations: 3
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Ceravolo v. Brown, 364 So. 2d 1155 (Ala., 1978)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Decision Date: 1978-12-01 Citations: 3
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Negative Treatment
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Notes

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Please, select a date range