Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. (2008)

Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 624 (6th Cir. 2008).

Her division at the VA handles contract procurement 1 See Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 102 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[A] lawyer representing himself ordinarily receives no such solicitude at all.”); Olivares v. Martin, 555 F.2d 1192 , 1194 n.1 (5th Cir. 1977) (“We cannot accord [the plaintiff] the advantage of the liberal construction of his complaint normally given pro se litigants because he is a licensed attorney.” (cleaned up)); Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 54…

See Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 102 (2d Cir. 2010) (noting that “the degree of solicitude may be lessened where the particular pro se litigant is experienced in litigation” and “a lawyer representing himself ordinarily receives no such solicitude at all”); Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 633 (6th Cir. 2008) (concluding that it was not an abuse of discretion to deny pro se practicing attorneys special consideration); Comm. on the Conduct of Att…

But when applying state law, we are “bound by decisions of the state’s highest court.” Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 624 (6th Cir. 2008).

Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 624 (6th Cir. 2008).

See Cole v. Comm’r, 637 F.3d 767, 773 (7th Cir. 2011) (“We note that pro se litigants who are attorneys are not entitled to the flexible treatment granted other pro se litigants.”); Tracey v. 4 Case: 19-20132 Document: 00515223405 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/04/2019 No. 19-20132 Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 102 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[A] lawyer representing himself ordinarily receives no [special] solicitude at all.”); Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 633 (6th Cir.…

Andrews v. Columbia *495 Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 624 (6th Cir.2008).

Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 624 (6th Cir.2008).

“We review a district court’s legal conclusions following a bench trial de novo.” *793 Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Carp., 544 F.3d 618, 624 (6th Cir.2008).

Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 624 (6th Cir.2008).

Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 623 (6th Cir.2008).

Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 624 (6th Cir.2008). 1.

Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 624 (6th Cir.2008).

Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 624 (6th Cir.2008).

Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 630 (6th Cir.2008) (and stating that there is no indication that the Ohio Supreme Court would disagree with these holdings).

See, e.g., Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618 (6th Cir. 2008) (“It was … not an abuse of discretion to deny [licensed attorneys] special consideration on the basis of their pro se status.”); Spence v. United States Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 109 F.4th 531 (D.C.

See Cody v. Slusher, No. 17-3764, 2018 WL 3587003 , at *1 (6th Cir. Mar. 8, 2018) (refusing to apply liberal standard to petitioner’s filings where petitioner attended law school and practiced criminal law outside Ohio); Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 633 (6th Cir. 2008); Zanke-Jodway v. Cap.

See Cody v. Slusher, No. 17-3764, 2018 WL 3587003 , at *1 (6th Cir. Mar. 8, 2018) (refusing to apply liberal standard to petitioner’s filings where petitioner attended law school and practiced criminal law outside Ohio); Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 633 (6th Cir. 2008); Zanke-Jodway v. Cap.

Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 624 (6th Cir. 2008), citing Alban v. R.K.

Cir. 2024); see also Huffman v. Lindgren, 84 F.4th 1016 , 1020–21 (9th Cir. 2023) (“The circuits that have reached the issue speak with one voice: they have uniformly declined to extend the liberal pleading standard to pro se attorneys.”) (citing cases); Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 633 (6th Cir. 2008) (concluding that it was not an abuse of discretion to deny pro se practicing attorneys special consideration).

Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 624 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Combs v. Int’l Ins.

Similarly, in Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 621 (6th Cir. 2008), the defendant had a contractual easement dating from 1947 to lay, operate, and maintain a pipe on plaintiffs’ land in Ohio.

Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 624 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Combs v. Int’l Ins.

He alleges that between 2016, when Aldersgate was created, and 2024, when he moved out of the 1 See Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 633 (6th Cir. 2008) (“We cannot accord [Plaintiff] the advantage of the liberal construction of his complaint normally given pro se litigants because he is a licensed attorney.”); Smith v. Plati, 258 F.3d 1167, 1174 (10th Cir. 2001) (“While we are generally obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, we decline to d…

See Polidi, 226 F. Supp. 3d at 616 n.1 (“[A]lthough plaintiff’s legal training has not been on display in his recent lawsuits, plaintiff is not entitled to the lenient standard afforded typical pro se litigants.”); Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 633 (6th Cir. 2008) (concluding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the magistrate judge to deny the pro se plaintiffs special consideration because they are practicing attorneys); Bertucci v. Brown,…

Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 633 (6th Cir. 2008) (finding no abuse of discretion when magistrate judge denied pro se party’s order based on legal deficiency because party was a practicing attorney).

Pa. 1994) (“According to the testimony of . . . [Plaintiff’s] Area Superintendent, which the court finds to be credible, the industry standard for gas pipelines is . . . a right-of-way of 50 feet in width.”); , 544 F.3d 618, 626 (6th Cir. 2008) (finding that the magistrate judge did not err in construing a right of way agreement as granting Columbia Gas a fifty-foot easement because it was “reasonably necessary and convenient for the inspection, operation, and maintenance of…

Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 624 (6th Cir.2008).

See, e.g., Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 2023) (explaining that the logic behind “afford[ing] leeway to pro se parties, who appear without counsel and without the benefit of sophisticated representation,” does not apply to practicing attorneys); Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 633 (6th Cir. 2008) (finding district court did not abuse its discretion by denying special consideration to pro se practicing attorneys); Comm. on the Co…

Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 624 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Combs v. Int’l Ins.

(Id.) Defendant NRCS noted that Plaintiff's "easement grantees must provide clear title and written, recordable right of access to the easement area" and that "[t]his may require obtaining subordination 7 "[A]n easement is an interest in the land of another, created by prescription or express or implied grant, which entitles the owner of the easement to a limited use of the land in which the interest exists." (Doc. 22- 4 PageID 367) (quoting Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmiss…

Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 633 (6th Cir. 2008) (finding no abuse of discretion when magistrate judge denied pro se party’s order based on legal deficiency because party was a practicing attorney).

Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 624 (6th Cir.2008).

Cf Andrew v. Columbia Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 628 (6th Cir. 2008) (stating that if a smart PIG detects an 80 percent wall loss, the pipeline must be excavated _ within five days); Grove Ave., 357 F. Supp. at 511 (stating that Kvasnicka “cannot recall a single ‘emergency’ unscheduled dig under an asphalt road, meaning that the equipment and personnel have always been scheduled in advance”).

Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 623 (6th Cir.2008) (citing Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 188; Ohayon v. Safeco Ins.

(Parrish Deck ¶ 20.) As the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit noted in Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., “[t]he public interest requires that Columbia be able to repair and service natural gas pipelines as quickly, safely, and reasonably as possible.” 544 F.3d 618, 629 (2008) (citations omitted).

Applicable Law Concerning the Statute of Limitation Issues In determining the substance of state law, the federal courts are bound by decisions of the state’s highest court, “unless that court would overrule its decisions on similar facts.” Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 624 (6th Cir.2008).

Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 624 (6th Cir.2008).

Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 624 (6th Cir.2008).

Corp. (C.A.6, 2008), 544 F.3d 618, 622 (summary judgment was denied and case proceeded to trial). {¶29} Furthermore, other cases cited by Buckeye were distinguishable in that the relevant facts and issues were different and/or the controlling language in the easements was different.

Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 624 (6th Cir.2008).

See id. at 621-22 .

See id. at 621-22 .

See 544 F.3d at 630 .

See Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618 , 623–24 (6th Cir. 2008).

See Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 624 (6th Cir.2008) (explaining that decisions of a state’s highest court are binding, while those of an intermediary appellate court are merely persuasive).

See Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 663 (6th Cir. 2008) (concluding that it was “not an abuse of discretion” to deny attorneys proceeding pro se “special consideration on the basis of their pro se status”).

Cal. May 22, 2012); see also Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 633 (6th 27 Cir. 2008); Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140 , 1148 n.4 (10th Cir. 2007); Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., 258 F.3d 62 , 82 n.4 (2d Cir. 2001); Godlove v. Bamberger, Foreman, Oswald, and Hahn, 903 28 F.2d 1145 , 1148 (7th Cir. 1990); Olivares v. Martin, 555 F.2d 1192 , 1194 n.1 (5th Cir. 1977). 1} contested discovery dispute in a genuine effort to avoid judicial intervention.” Shuff…

Cal. May 22, 2012); see also Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 633 (6th 27 Cir. 2008); Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140 , 1148 n.4 (10th Cir. 2007); Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., 258 F.3d 62 , 82 n.4 (2d Cir. 2001); Godlove v. Bamberger, Foreman, Oswald, and Hahn, 903 28 F.2d 1145 , 1148 (7th Cir. 1990); Olivares v. Martin, 555 F.2d 1192 , 1194 n.1 (5th Cir. 1977). 1 to each of Plaintiff’s requests for admission.

See Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 632 (6th Cir. 2008) (under Ohio law, “the agreement provided for damages to crops and fences, not trees” and the “plain and ordinary meaning of these words is clear”); Yellowstone Pipe Line Co. v. Kuczynski, 283 F.2d 415, 418 (9th Cir. 1960) (under Idaho law, contract whereby grantee of pipeline easement agreed to pay damages that might arise to crops, 6 Tishner recognized that damage caused outside the relevant e…