Allison v. ExxonMobil Corp.
Open-knowledge reference entry
The Jacksonville, Maryland, ExxonMobil gas leak cases were a series of lawsuits against ExxonMobil as a result of a February 2006 underground gasoline leak from an ExxonMobil service station in Jacksonville, Maryland.
Case history
In February 2006, nearly 26,000 gallons of gasoline leaked from a Jacksonville, Maryland, ExxonMobil station over a period of 37 days. Nearly 300 plaintiffs subsequently sued for over $1 billion for the contamination of their wells, loss of property value, physical and mental harm. The case put a spotlight on MTBE, a gasoline additive known to cause cancer in laboratory rats. Additionally, the lawsuits alleged ExxonMobil of fraud, a charge eligible for punitive damages if found guilty.
A first lawsuit was represented by Snyder, Weltchek, and Snyder. The fraud alleged in this suit was ExxonMobil's actions of intentional malice through their effective non-action in stopping the leak and providing adequate monitoring to prevent the spill.
Another large group of plaintiffs were represented by The Law Offices of Peter Angelos. In July 2011, the Angelos plaintiffs were awarded, in sum, half a billion dollars in compensatory damages and another 1.5 billion dollars in punitive damages for fraud. The fraud finding involved Exxon's failure to install a promised "bathtub" design to catch potential leaking gas, and then a subsequent failure to disclose that the "bathtub" liner was not in place.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Allison v. ExxonMobil Corp.” is open-knowledge reference entry. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Allison, ExxonMobil and Corp, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “open-knowledge reference entry” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 23, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q4732720. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2006 and 2011.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Allison v. ExxonMobil Corp.”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Allison v. ExxonMobil Corp. primary sources, Allison v. ExxonMobil Corp. archive and Allison research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Allison v. ExxonMobil Corp.”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Allison v. ExxonMobil Corp.” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.