Cases

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 <

ORDER BRIAN J. DAVIS, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint [Docs. 141, 145, 154, and 156; Motions]. Plaintiffs responded with their Consolidated Brief in Opposition [Doc. 159]. Accordingly, this matter is ripe for review. I. BACKGROUND1 Plain

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals Rita Joyce Glenn, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Thomas Harold Glenn, deceased, Respondent, v. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.; Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to Buffalo Pumps; Airgas USA, LLC; Aurora Pump; BW/IP Inc., a Subsidiary of Flowserve Corporation; CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation f/k/a Viacom, Inc., Success

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. 23-2266 ___________________________ Thomas Clobes Plaintiff - Appellant v. 3M Company Defendant - Appell

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

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ Nos. 20-1635; 20-2545-48; 20-2550; 20-2556 ___________________________ Christopher Graves; Jeff Hall, et al. lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellees v. 3M Company; Aearo Technologies LLC lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellants

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION WERNER RATH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) C.A. No. N17C-08-228 ASB 3M COMPANY, et al. ) ) Defendants. ) OPINION Submitted: March 27, 2019 Decided: April 18, 2019 Upon Defendant Delmarva Power & Light Company ’s Motion for Summary Judgment, GRANTED. Upon Defena’ants Four Star Oz`l & Gas Compcmy, TRMI-H LLC, and Texaco Inc. ’s Motionfor Summarjy Jua'gment, GRANTED. Upon Defendant Sunoco (R&M), LLC ’s Motion for Summary J

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

IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT KATHERINE O’HAVER, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) WD86040 ) 3M COMPANY, ) Opinion filed: June 18, 2024 ) Respondent. ) APPEAL

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,

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 3M COMPANY, INC. et al., IN RE; ASBESToS LITIGATloN= ) ) LARRY CECIL STURGILL and ) JILL STURGILL, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) C.A. NO. N15C-12-188 ASB ) v- ) ) ) ) ) Defendants. Submitted: October 5, 2017 Decided: Decemberl 1, 2017 Upon Defendant Union Carbide Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment GRANTED. ORDER David W. deBruin, Esquire, The deBruin Firm LLC, 1201 North Orange Street, Suite 500, Wilmington, DE 19801, Attorney for Plaintiffs, Larry

06/30/2020 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE July 11, 2019 Session LOIS IRENE DAVIS ET AL. v. 3M COMPANY ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Maury County No. 15734 Robert E. Lee Davies, Senior Judge ___________________________________

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

7ermont Superior Court Filed 03/21/25 Chittenden UUnit VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION Chittenden Unit

KEARSE, Circuit Judge: In these two civil enforcement actions for securities fraud — brought, respectively* by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) against defendants Stephen Walsh and Paul Greenwood, et al., and consolidated by this Court for appeal — various entities that were defrauded by the defend

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 23-1709 STATE OF MAINE, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. 3M COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. John A. Woodcock, Jr., U.S. District Judge]