Antero Resources Corporation v. Strudley

2015 CO 26, 347 P.3d 149 (2015)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Antero Resources Corporation v. Strudley

Colorado Supreme Court
2015 CO 26, 347 P.3d 149 (2015)

Facts

William and Beth Strudley (plaintiffs) sued Antero Resources Corporation (Antero) (defendant) in Colorado state court, alleging that pollutants from Antero’s natural-gas drilling operations had contaminated the air, water, and ground near the Strudleys’ home and injured the Strudleys and their children. The Strudleys’ complaint identified the alleged chemical pollutants but did not causally connect any specific chemicals to their injuries. Antero asked the trial court to issue a Lone Pine order—a case-management order named after a 1986 New Jersey state-court decision—requiring the Strudleys to present prima facie evidence supporting their claims of exposure, injury, and causation before discovery could continue. The trial court issued a Lone Pine order giving the Strudleys 105 days to present (1) a prima facie showing of toxin exposure from Antero’s activities, supported by expert opinions and medical records, (2) evidence of causation regarding the specific toxins for each of the Strudleys, and (3) identification and quantification of the contamination to the Strudleys’ real property that was attributable to Antero’s drilling operations. The Strudleys submitted evidence including photographs, medical records, air and water analyses, and a doctor’s affidavit opining that further investigation was necessary given the Strudleys’ symptoms and conditions. However, the Strudleys presented no expert opinions concluding that they had been exposed to toxins or that Antero’s drilling operations had caused the alleged injuries and property damage. Antero moved to dismiss the Strudleys’ action for failure to comply with the case-management order, and the trial court granted the motion. However, the appellate court reinstated the Strudleys’ claims after holding that the trial court had exceeded its authority by issuing the Lone Pine order. The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Hobbs, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 744,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership