The Western Kentucky Royalty Trust v. Armstrong Coal Reserves, Inc. et al
| The Western Kentucky Royalty Trust |
| Armstrong Energy, Inc., Armstrong Land Company, LLC, Western Land Company, LLC, Western Diamond, LLC, Ceralvo Holdings, LLC, Armstrong Coal Reserves, Inc., Armstrong Coal Company, Inc., Armstrong Mining, Inc. and Armstrong Resources, LLC |
| 4:2011cv00114 |
| September 20, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky |
| Owensboro Office |
| Muhlenberg |
| E. Robert Goebel |
| Joseph H. McKinley |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
196
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 192 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment; denying as moot 194 Motion to Stay. Signed by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr on 8/21/13. cc:counsel (JBM)
|
|
Filing
133
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Defendants Objection to WKRTs Proposed Final Summary Judgment 127 is OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs Motion to File Under Seal 131 is GRANTED. Signed by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr on 7/16/13. cc:counsel (JBM)
|
|
Filing
123
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 109 and 110 Motion for Attorney Fees. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of $273,366. Signed by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr on 6/5/13. cc:counsel (JBM)
|
|
Filing
103
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiffs Motion for Final Summary Judgment 85 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs entitlement to: (1) a dual royalty for coal in connection with underground mining;(2) a declaratio n that the Royalty Agreements bind subsequent owners of listed coal reserves and surface properties; and (3) attorneys fees that were incurred in enforcing its rights under the Royalty Agreements. It is DENIED as to Plaintiffs claim for: (1) a dual royalty for coal in connection withstrip-mining; and (2) surface royalties associated with the extraction of subsequently-acquired coal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Request for Oral Argument 97 is DENIED.FURTHER that Plaintiffs Motion to File under Seal 99 is GRANTED. Signed by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr on 2/20/13. cc:counsel (JBM)
|
|
Filing
82
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment 31 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs claim for royalties on subsequently-acquired coal and as to most of Plaintiffs claims for multiple roya lties. It is DENIED as to whether the Royalty Agreements provide for royalties when coal is extracted through a surface portal from a listed surface-only tract. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 35 is GRAN TED in part and DENIED in part. It is granted as to whether the Royalty Agreements provide for royalties when coal is extracted through a surface portal from a listed surface-only tract. It is DENIED as to its claim for royalties on subsequently-acquired coal and as to its other claims for multiple royalties. FURTHER that Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Defendants Reply 66 is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr on 11/27/12. cc:counsel (JBM)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Kentucky Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
