Cases

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 23a0078p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ BRIAN ADAMS, et al., │ Plaintiffs-Ap

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court John A. Tibbs and Margaret B. Tibbs, Respondents, v. 3M Company; 4520 Corp., Inc.; A.O. Smith Corporation; A. W. Chesterton Company; ABB Inc.; Air & Liquid Systems Corporation; AIW-2010 Wind Down Corp.; Amentum Environment & Energy, Inc.; Anchor/Darling Valve Company; Armstrong International, Inc.; Asbestos Corporation Limited ASCO, L.P.; Atlas Asbestos Co.; Atlas Turner, Inc.; AWT Air Company, Inc.; Bahnson, Inc.; Banner I

Judge Roland L. Belsome hln preparation for trial on this meso-thelioma case, the plaintiff served trial subpoenas on numerous defendant corporations for the in-court appearance of a corporate representative at trial. The defendant corporations filed motions to quash the subpoenas. The trial court granted the motions to quash as to the corporations that were not domiciled in Louisiana. The plaintiff filed an application for su

SECTION: “G”(4) ORDER NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Margaret Leech’s (“Leech”) “Motion to Remand to State Court.”1 Having considered the motion, the memoranda in support and in opposition, the record, and the applicable law, the Court will deny the motion. I. Background <

328 S.W.3d 184 (2010) 3M COMPANY, Appellant, v. Hon. William ENGLE III, Judge, Perry Circuit Court, et al., Appellees. and Kentucky Mine Supply, et al., Real Parties in Interest. American Optical Corporation and 3M Company, Appellants, v. Delbert Miller, et al., Appellees. Nos. 2010-SC-000125-MR, 2010-SC-000163-MR. Supreme Court of Kentucky. December 16, 2010.</

364 F.3d 952 Brandee K. ADAMS, Individually; Jordan Adams, by and through her Natural Mother, Legal Guardian and Next Friend, Brandee K. Adams, Appellants,v.CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellee. No. 03-2213. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted: November 20, 2003. Filed: April 20, 2004.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA September 2025 Term FILED November 7, 2025 released at 3:00 p.m. No. 23-717 C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1609 GARY ADAMS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. AMERICAN OPTICAL CORPORATION; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, Defendants – Appellees, and COAST HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED; 3M COMPANY, as successor by merger to Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company and/or its p

Tippin v 3M Co., Alcat (2024 NY Slip Op 06679) Tippin v 3M Co., Alcat 2024 NY Slip Op 06679 Decided on December 31, 2024 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.<

MEMORANDUM OPINION REGGIE B. WALTON, District Judge. On December 28, 2007, the plaintiffs in two civil suits pending in different jurisdictions, Rhodes v. E.I. Dupont Demours & Co., Civil Action Case No. 6:06-530 (S.D.W.Va.), and Rowe v. E.I. Dupont Demours & Co., Civil Action Case No. 06-1810-RMB-AMD (D.N.J.), filed a motion to compel John Adams Associates, Inc. (“John Adams”) “to

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 07a0424p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ X Plaintiff-Appellant, - NIC

Opinion issued July 2, 2026 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-26-00648-CV ——————————— IN RE 3M COMPANY, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus MEMORAN

OPINION WRIGHT, Justice. This ease presents several issues regarding disqualification of legal counsel because of a violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.9(a) arising from a conflict of interest with a former client. These issues include who has standing to appeal a district court order granting a motion to disqualify, the legal standard for determining whether Rule 1.9(a) has been violated, and whether t

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge ROGERS. ROGERS, Circuit Judge: Richard J. Adams petitions for review of the denial of his application for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 5 U.S.C. § 504. The Securities and Exchange Commission ruled that Adams’s application was untimely because it was not filed within 30 days of th

ON REHEARING EN BANC PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1839 JOYCE BARLOW, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Defendant – Appellant, and JOHN CRANE−HOUDAILLE, INCORPORATED; E.L. STEBBING & COMPANY, INC.; HAMPSHIRE INDUSTRIES, INC., f/k/a John H. Hampshire Compa

17 F.3d 1453 38 ERC 1259, 305 U.S.App.D.C. 100, 62USLW 2549,24 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,544 3M COMPANY (MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING), Petitioner,v.Carol M. BROWNER, Administrator of Environmental ProtectionAgency and Environmental Protection Agency, Respondents. No. 92-1126. United States Court of Appeals,District of Columbia Circuit.

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1839 JOYCE BARLOW, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Defendant – Appellant, and JOHN CRANE−HOUDAILLE, INCORPORATED; E.L. STEBBING & COMPANY, INC.; HAMPSHIRE INDUSTRIES, INC., f/k/a John H. Hampshire Company; UNIVERSAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY; J.

Town of Petersburgh v 3M Co. 2026 NY Slip Op 04019 June 25, 2026 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Town of Petersburgh, Respondent, v 3M Company, Formerly Known as Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., e

423 F.Supp.2d 958 (2006) 3M COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. INTERTAPE POLYMER GROUP, INC., Central Products Company, and Intertape Polymer Corporation, Defendants. No. Civ. 03-2651JRTFLN. United States District Court, D. Minnesota. March 24, 2006. *959 *960 Daniel J. Brown and Thomas W. Tinkham, Dorsey

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2005-IA-01406-SCT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY v. LONNIE ADAMS, JR., ET AL. ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: GLENN F. BECKHAM LONNIE D. BAILEY EDWARD BLACKMON, JR. FRANK JONES ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: WIL