Moore v. Texaco, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding, albeit under Oklahoma law, that plaintiffs didn’t have a nuisance claim against a prior landowner for its actions in contaminating the soil and water on the property and “alter[ing] and distort[ing] the natural contours of the land”
• applying Oklahoma law, which has embraced § 161, see An- gier v. Mathews Expl. Corp., 905 P.2d 826, 830 (Okla. Civ. App. 1995
• affirming summary judgment as to negligence per se claim because “there is no proof that [the defendant] actually violated any statute or caused any pollution”
• granting summary judgment in favor of defendant when plaintiff “failed to produce evidence, sufficient to survive summary judgment, that any act or omission by [the prior landowner] caused a public nuisance.”
• affirming summary judgment on negligence claim under Oklahoma law where the plaintiff cited “no Oklahoma authority that would make a landowner liable to a subsequent landowner for negligently polluting land prior to the sale”
• affirming summary judgment in favor of oil company on an unjust enrichment claim where the plaintiff “failed to show that [defendant] caused any pollution or that it has any responsibility for cleaning up the pollution on the property.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).