Cases

United States Tax Court 160 T.C. No. 3 3M COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ————— Docket No. 5816-13. Filed February 9, 2023. ————— P is the common parent company of the P consolidated group. As

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2899 ___________________________ In re: Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming Devices Products Liability Litigation ------------------------------ George Amador Plaintiff - Appellant

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 23-1362 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. 3M COMPANY, Defendant, Appellant, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY; CHEMOURS COMPANY, f/k/a THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, LLC; CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., D

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2932 ___________________________ In re: Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming Devices Products Liability Litigation ------------------------------ John Petitta lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 3M COMPANY Plaintiff, C.A. NO.: N18C-07-089 AML CCLD Vv. NEOLOGY, INC. and ONE EQUITY PARTNERS VI, L.P., New Newer Neer” Nee Nee Nee Nee ree” Nee eee” Defendants. Submitted: March 25, 2019 Decided: June 28, 2019 Upon Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendant Neology, Inc.’s First Amended Counterclaim: Granted in Part, Denied in Part MEMORANDUM OPINION Rafael X. Zahralddin-Aravena, Esquire, Jonathan M. Stemerman, Esquire of ELLIOTT GREENLEAF,

CONSOLIDATED DECISION Before this Court are two motions to dismiss pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The Plaintiffs in these matters object to the motions and request guidance from this Court as to the application of Rhode Island Supreme Court opinionKedy v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 946 A.2d 1171 (R.I. 2008), to ongoing asbestos litigation. Due to simil

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

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

R. Brooke Jackson, United States District Judge Defendants Tyco Fire Products, Chemguard and 3M move to dismiss plaintiffs' medical monitoring claims, arguing that Colorado's appellate courts have not recognized such a cause of action. Tyco and Chemguard alternatively request that the issue be certified to the Colorado Supreme Court. Several other defendants ask to join one or both of the motions to dismiss. I decline to certify the

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2004-IA-00289-SCT 3M COMPANY v. SIMEON JOHNSON, et al. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/24/2004 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JANNIE M. LEWIS COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HOLMES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: BARRY W. FORD WALKER (BILL) JONES, III

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2002-CA-01651-SCT 3M COMPANY f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. SIMEON JOHNSON, JAMES CURRY, BOBBY JOE LAWRENCE AND PHILLIP PATE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/30/2002 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JANNIE M. LEWIS COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HOLMES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: DONN

MEMORANDUM, ORDER, AND JUDGMENT ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: This action arises out of the acquisition in late 2006 and early 2007 by Plaintiff Meda AB (“Meda”) of a European pharmaceutical business from Defendant 3M Company (“3M”). Meda alleges that 3M breached the acquisition agreement signed on November 8, 2006 (“Acquisition Agreement”), as well as the implied covenant of good faith and fair deali

764 N.W.2d 631 (2009) Clifford L. WHITAKER, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Respondents, v. 3M COMPANY, Appellant. No. A08-0816. Court of Appeals of Minnesota. April 28, 2009. *633 Susan M. Coler, Sprenger & Lang, PLLC, Minneapolis and Michael D. Lieder, Washington, DC, for respondents.

OPINION HOCHBERG, District Judge: I. BACKGROUND Just breathing in a dirty or contaminated area can cause serious injury. Industrial respirators are designed to protect workers in these environments. This dispute revolves around the filtration membrane used in industrial respirators. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) regulations govern the type and quality

673 F.3d 1372 (2012) 3M COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. No. 2011-1339. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. March 26, 2012. *1373 John A. Dragseth, Fish & Richardson, P.C., of Minneapolis, MN, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were John C. Adkiss

641 F.Supp.2d 834 (2009) 3M COMPANY, and 3M Innovative Properties Company, Plaintiffs, v. MOLDEX-METRIC, INC., Defendant. Civil File No. 03-5292 (MJD/AJB). United States District Court, D. Minnesota. July 10, 2009. *837 Juanita R. Brooks, John C. Adkisson and Sara Cotton, Fish & Richardson P.C. and Hildy Bowbeer and Karl G. H

926 So.2d 860 (2006) 3M COMPANY v. Simeon JOHNSON, et al. No. 2004-IA-00289-SCT. Supreme Court of Mississippi. April 13, 2006. *861 Barry W. Ford, Walker (Bill) Jones, III, Scott William Bates, Barry Clayton Campbell, Jackson, attorneys for appellant. Suzanne Griggins Keys, and Isaac K. Byrd, Jr., Jackson, attorneys for ap

POSNER, Circuit Judge. This is a suit, primarily for fraud in violation of the common law of Illinois, that has been brought in federal court under the diversity jurisdiction. A count that charged a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, was dismissed early on because the plaintiff had not filed a timely charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Later the court granted s

324 F.3d 141 LEPAGE'S INCORPORATED; LePage's Management Company, L.L.C., Appellees/Cross-Appellantsv.3M (MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY); Kroll Associates, Inc. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, Appellant/Cross-Appellee. No. 00-1368. No. 00-1473. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued July 12, 2001.

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge, dissenting, joined by Judges DAUGHTREY, COLE, and CLAY. In a recent dissent, Justice Stevens wrote nostalgically about times gone by, when most “highspeed driving took place on two-lane roads rather than on superhighways” and “when split-second judgments about the risk of passing a slowpoke in the face of oncoming traffic were routine.” Scott v.