Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
LACLEDE GAS COMPANY, doing business as Midwest Missouri Gas Company, Appellant, v. AMOCO OIL COMPANY, Appellee, 1975 — 522 F.2d 41 · caselaw · US
General
LACLEDE GAS COMPANY, doing business as Midwest Missouri Gas Company, Appellant, v. AMOCO OIL COMPANY, Appellee
522 F.2d 41·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1975
Before LAY, ROSS and WEBSTER, Circuit Judges.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
LACLEDE GAS COMPANY, doing business as Midwest Missouri Gas Company, Appellant, v. AMOCO OIL COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 75-1474.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 20, 1975.
Decided Sept. 8, 1975.
Morris E. Stokes and P. B. Hunker, Jr., and Richmond C. Coburn, Coburn, Croft, Shepherd & Herzog, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Before LAY, ROSS and WEBSTER, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The judgment of the district court dismissing Count II of appellant’s complaint, is reversed and remanded for further proceedings in the trial court consistent with the views expressed in the opinion of this court in Laclede Gas Co. v. Amoco Oil Co., 522 F.2d 33 (8th Cir. 1975). In so doing, this court expresses no opinion as to whether or not damages, as well as injunctive relief, should be awarded by the trial court. That is a matter to be determined after the evidence has been presented.
_ , , , , Reversed and remanded with directions.
. During oral argument in the earlier case in this court counsel for appellant made the following statement:
I don’t think we would have any claim for damages if the court were to specifically enforce the agreement. I think we would have damages only in the event that it does not do so.
Counsel did not, however, agree to dismiss his second cause of action as originally contended by the appellee.