- 8 -
amounts which it had paid to the Treasury as a result of the DOE
litigation.
Decedent, individually and as the executrix of the estate of
Jessamine Allen, and Frankie were parties to the suit. The
Jarvis Christian defendants vigorously contested Exxon's claims.
On July 22, 1988, the Jarvis Christian defendants filed a motion
for judgment for lack of Federal statutory or common law claims,
asserting that neither Federal statutory law nor common law
authorized any of Exxon's claims against them.
On November 7, 1989, the District Court issued an order
granting an oral motion for reverse bifurcation. The District
Court ordered that the trial on the damages issue in the case
would precede trial on the liability issue. By order dated
December 5, 1989, the District Court directed the parties to file
any motions for summary judgment with respect to the issue of
whether Exxon had suffered any damages. Pursuant to this order,
on January 16, 1990, the royalty and working interest owners
filed a joint motion for summary judgment and memorandum in
support of their motion against Exxon. In their accompanying
memorandum, the interest owners denied that any amounts were owed
to Exxon, regardless of whether any liability under law could
attach to them, because Exxon had not, in fact, suffered any loss
in paying the approximately $2.1 billion judgment.6
6The Allen parties expressly adopted the joint motion for
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011