Neither of the lower courts wrote an opinion.
The plaintiff contends that this judgment should be reversed for three reasons.
The first is that the trial court erroneously admitted the answer of a witness, Mike Mercure, to a hypothetical question which assumed unproved facts as to the value of underlying strippable coal. He testified that the construction of the pipe lines would prevent...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
