- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.
Collection
Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.
Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. ↗
1:11-cv-00220S.D. Miss.2 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
03/20/2012
Decision
Memorandum opinion and order issued granting motions to dismiss.
A federal district court in Mississippi held that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel barred claims for trespass, nuisance, and negligence against oil, coal, electric, and chemical companies for damages stemming from Hurricane Katrina. The court held that the lawsuit was nearly identical to the individuals’ 2005 lawsuit. The court also found that the plaintiffs lacked standing because their claims were not fairly traceable to the companies’ conduct, that the lawsuit presented a non-justiciable political question, that all of the claims were preempted by the Clean Air Act, that the claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that their injuries were proximately caused by the companies’ conduct.
05/27/2011
Complaint
Complaint filed.
Plaintiffs refiled their climate change tort action alleging public and private nuisance, trespass, and
negligence causes of action under Mississippi law.
Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. ↗
12-60291United States Federal Courts, United States Fifth Circuit (5th Cir.)1 entry
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
05/14/2013
Decision
Opinion issued affirming dismissal.
On May 14, 2013, the Fifth Circuit affirmed on res judicata grounds the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims. The Fifth Circuit rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that the district court’s 2007 judgment was not final or on the merits, noting that at no point in the appeals process for the 2007 judgment had the judgment been disturbed. The Fifth Circuit also refused plaintiffs’ request for an equitable exception to res judicata, invoking the “well-known rule that a federal court may not abrogate principles of res judicata out of equitable concerns.” The Fifth Circuit also held that the 2007 judgment was on the merits since res judicata principles applied to jurisdictional determinations.