Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Depeterdy v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp, 00-1224 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-1224 Visitors: 13
Filed: Sep. 21, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1224 THOMAS J. DEPETERDY, d/b/a Depeterdy Tree Farms, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CABOT OIL & GAS CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-966-2) Submitted: August 31, 2000 Decided: September 21, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1224 THOMAS J. DEPETERDY, d/b/a Depeterdy Tree Farms, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CABOT OIL & GAS CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-966-2) Submitted: August 31, 2000 Decided: September 21, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry L. Skeen, SKEEN & SKEEN, Ripley, West Virginia, for Ap- pellant. Timothy M. Miller, ROBINSON & MCELWEE, L.L.P., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Thomas J. Depeterdy appeals from the district court’s order partially granting summary judgment in favor of Cabot Oil and Gas Corporation and the jury’s subsequent award of damages in his diversity action against Cabot. We have reviewed the record and the materials presented by the parties, including Depeterdy’s spe- cific allegations of error in the district court’s determinations, and find no reversible error therein. Accordingly, we affirm those decisions on the reasoning of the district court. See Depeterdy v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., No. CA-97-966-2 (S.D.W. Va. Sep. 13, 1999 & Feb. 3, 2000). Depeterdy has also raised a handful of claims not clearly pre- sented to the court below. We find these claims to be both waived, and without merit. Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the district court’s order, and therefore affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer