W. W. McDonald Land Co. et al v. EQT Production Company et al
| W. W. McDonald Land Co., The Bruce McDonald Holding Company, The Millard McDonald Heirs, The Alice Robinson Heirs, S.E. McDonald Inc., C.B. Morris, Inc., Oakley, Inc., L.O.U. Corporation, McDonald-Robinson, Inc., Glenn T. Yost, Zada Phipps, The Ernest M. Phipps Shelter Trust, William McDonald Clark and The Virginia Phipps Cox Family Trust |
| EQT Production Company and EQT Corporation |
| 2:2011cv00418 |
| June 16, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia |
| Charleston Office |
| Logan |
| Joseph R. Goodwin |
| 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
256
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying defendants' 156 MOTION to Bifurcate; denying as moot the plaintiffs' 188 MOTION in Limine to Prevent EQT Production from Asserting the Defense of Advice of Counsel; granting the plaintiffs' ; 190 MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Expert Opinions of John Lowe; granting plaintiffs' 249 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Argument Regarding defendants' Settlement Efforts and the Kay Class Action; and denying the defendants' 245 MOTION in Limine to Limit Claims for Prejudgment Interest. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 8/14/2014. (cc: attys; any unrepresented parties) (taq)
|
|
Filing
232
ORDER denying Defendants' 224 JOINT MOTION for Reconsideration of 223 Clarification of Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 4/11/2014. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmh)
|
|
Filing
223
CLARIFICATION OF MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting the plaintiffs' 221 MOTION for Clarification of the 214 Memorandum Opinion and Order, insofar as discussed and set forth more fully herein. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 1/21/2014. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party)(published to the court's website, www.wvsd.uscourts.gov) (taq)
|
|
Filing
214
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 131 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 133 MOTION for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 143 MOTION for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 169 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 11/21/2013. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party; www.wvsd.uscourts.gov) (tmr)
|
|
Filing
117
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 100 MOTION for Leave to Serve Additional Interrogatories. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 8/26/2013. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmr)
|
|
Filing
90
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 86 MOTION for Protective Order; denying Defendants' motion to quash or limit the subject matter of the deposition, but granting its motion to restrict the applicability of the notice to one Defendant, EQT Production Company. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 5/16/2013. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (mkw)
|
|
Filing
80
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying the plaintiffs' 77 MOTION to Compel EQT Production Company to Answer Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents; directing the plaintiffs to show cause wh y they should not be required to pay the defendant's reasonable expenses pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(B); plaintiffs' brief due by 4/26/2013; defendant to respond by 5/10/2013; and the plaintiffs' reply due by 5/17/2013. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 3/27/2013. (cc: attys; any unrepresented parties) (taq)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
- 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.
