Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword or section
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Willits v. Peabody Coal Co., LLC, No. ____ (Oct. 23, 2013)

Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Willits v. Peabody Coal Co., LLC, No. ____ (Oct. 23, 2013)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,863 |Likes:
Published by robert_thomas_5
Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Willits v. Peabody Coal Co., LLC, No. ____ (Oct. 23, 2013)
Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Willits v. Peabody Coal Co., LLC, No. ____ (Oct. 23, 2013)

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: robert_thomas_5 on Oct 24, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/18/2013

pdf

text

original

 
No. _________
================================================================
In The
Supreme Court of the United States
---------------------------------
---------------------------------PATRICIA WILLITS; WILLIAM G. PARROTT, JR.; AND DONALD PETRIE, AS TRUSTEEFOR THE PPW ROYALTY TRUST,
 Petitioners,
v.PEABODY COAL COMPANY, LLC; PEABODY ENERGY CORPORATION; PEABODY DEVELOPMENTCOMPANY, LLC; PEABODY HOLDING COMPANY, LLC;WESTERN DIAMOND, LLC; ARMSTRONG COALCOMPANY, INC.; CYPRUS CREEK LAND RESOURCES,LLC; CYPRUS CREEK LAND COMPANY; WESTERNLAND COMPANY, LLC; CERALVO HOLDINGS, LLC;CERALVO RESOURCES, LLC; ARMSTRONGCOAL RESERVES, INC.; ARMSTRONG LANDCOMPANY, LLC; AND STATE OF MISSOURI,
 Respondents.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
On Petition For A Writ Of CertiorariTo The Missouri Court Of Appeals,Eastern District
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
---------------------------------
---------------------------------G
EORGE
A. B
 ARTON
 
Counsel of Record
 L
 AW
O
FFICES
 
OF
 G
EORGE
A. B
 ARTON
, P.C.4435 Main Street, Suite 920Kansas City, Missouri 64111(816) 300-6250gab@georgebartonlaw.com
Counsel for Petitioners
 ================================================================
COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM
 
i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
 Under two royalty agreements executed in 1954,Petitioners are to be paid royalties on coal mined byPeabody Coal Company (“Peabody”), its successors andassigns after December 1, 1954 from lands located inthree designated boundaries in Kentucky. In 1999,the Sixth Circuit affirmed a Kentucky federal court judgment which rejected Peabody’s claim that the tworoyalty agreements are invalid, and which confirmedthe validity and enforceability of the two agreements.In subsequent litigation between Petitioners, Pea-body, and its assignee, however, the Missouri Court of  Appeals affirmed a judgment which ignored and con-tradicted the Kentucky federal court judgment, andwhich instead held that the two royalty agreementsare partially invalid, and are not enforceable in ac-cordance with their express terms. The Petitionersthen filed suit against the State of Missouri, seeking a judgment declaring that the Missouri state court judgments were in violation of the Full Faith andCredit Clause, and should be vacated, and that theMissouri judgments constituted a “judicial taking” of Petitioners’ established property rights, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Missouri Court of Appealsrefused to address the merits of Petitioners’ constitu-tional claims, based upon a nonexistent Missouri ruleof procedure that Petitioners had waived their consti-tutional claims by not pursuing them in the earlierMissouri litigation. The questions presented are:
 
ii
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
– Continued1. Does the Full Faith and Credit Clause of theUnited States Constitution require the Missouricourts to give
res judicata
effect to a valid Kentuckyfederal court judgment confirming the validity of tworoyalty agreements, and to vacate the later Missouri judgments which directly contradict the Kentucky judgment regarding the validity of those agreements?2. Did the Missouri Court of Appeals violate theFifth Amendment’s “Takings Clause” by eliminating Petitioners’ established property rights under tworoyalty agreements in direct contradiction to theunambiguous terms of those agreements?

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->