Cook v. DeSoto Fuels, Inc.
Missouri Court of Appeals
169 S.W.3d 94 (2005)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
DeSoto Fuels, Inc. (DeSoto) (defendant) operated a gas station on property containing underground storage tanks of gasoline. At some point, a leak allegedly developed in one or more of the tanks, contaminating the groundwater on the nearby property of Claude and Mary Jeanne Cook (plaintiffs). The Cooks had two wells on their property. In or around 1993, Claude and one of the Cooks’ tenants observed a strong gasoline odor coming from the well water. The state department of natural resources tested the well water and detected contaminants. In 1994, the department continued testing the wells, and the results indicated pollution. Likewise, the Cooks drilled a new well, which became quickly contaminated. On March 8, 1996, the department issued a final report, which described the contaminated well water and identified four potentially responsible parties, including DeSoto. In 2000, the Cooks tried to sell their property, but the deal failed when the prospective buyer detected an unacceptable level of groundwater contamination on the property. The Cooks retained counsel and, on March 30, 2001, filed a suit against DeSoto and two other defendants, claiming trespass and nuisance from the chemical contamination. The court granted summary judgment in favor of DeSoto based on applying a five-year statute of limitations for trespass and permanent nuisance. The Cooks appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Norton, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.