Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “MERCER v. 3M COMPANY”
Mercer v. 3M Precision Optics, Inc.public domain
{¶ 1} Plaintiffs-appellants, Tom Mercer et al., appeal a decision of the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas ruling in favor of defendant-appellee, 3M Precision Optics, Inc., in a breach-of-contract action. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm the decision of the trial court. *Page 309 {¶ 2} On August 14, 2003, appellants Tom Mercer, d.b.a. Mercer Technical Services and Mercer Supply Company (col
OPINION {¶ 1} Plaintiffs-appellants, Tom Mercer, et al., appeal a decision of the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas ruling in favor of defendant-appellee, 3M Precision Optics, Inc., in a breach of contract action. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm the decision of the trial court. {¶ 2} On August 14, 2003, appellants Tom Mercer d.b.a. Mercer Technical Services
Mercer v. Phillipspublic domain
—Carpinello, J. Appeal from that part of an order of the Supreme Court (Williams, J.), entered May 13, 1997 in Saratoga County, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance of a real estate contract and dismissal of defendant’s counterclaim. By contract dated October 23, 1995, defendant agreed to purchase and plaintiff agreed to sell certain commercial property located in the
Saint-Gobain Corporation v. 3M Companypublic domain
THIS OPINION IS A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Hearing: Mailed: 14 September 2006 31 August 2007 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____ Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ______ Saint-Gobain Corporation v. 3M Company1
280 F.2d 499 ARMOUR RESEARCH FOUNDATION, etc. and Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants and Cross-Appellees,v.C. K. WILLIAMS & CO., Inc., Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant.ARMOUR RESEARCH FOUNDATION, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee,v.TECHNICAL TAPE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant. Nos. 12701-12706. United Stat
Wylie v. Wyliepublic domain
[Cite as Wylie v. Wylie, 2024-Ohio-1179.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT FULTON COUNTY Thomas J. Wylie, Sr. Court of Appeals No. F-23-004 Appellant Trial Court No. 13 DS 150 v. Lisa M. Wylie DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellee Deci
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE RAMCELL, INC., ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2019-0601-PAF ) ALLTEL CORPORATION d/b/a VERIZON ) WIRELESS, ) )
RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 22a0237p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ CAUDILL SEED & WAREHOUSE CO., INC., │ Plain
Gauthier v. Gauthierpublic domain
[Cite as Gauthier v. Gauthier, 2019-Ohio-4208.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY SU KANG GAUTHIER, : CASE NOS. CA2018-09-098 CA2018-09-099 Appellee, :
Nebgen v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.public domain
CHAPA, Chief Justice, dissenting. I believe the majority erroneously sustains this judgment as disposing of all of the appellants’ causes of action. I therefore respectfully dissent. Appellants argue that 3M’s summary judgment proof was legally insufficient to negate essential elements of all their causes of action. As noted by the majority, it is well settled that summary judgment for a def
United States v. WR Gracepublic domain
401 F.Supp.2d 1069 (2005) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. W.R. GRACE, Alan R. Stringer, Henry A. Eschenbach, Jack W. Wolter, William J. McCaig, Robert J. Bettacchi, O. Mario Favorito, Robert C. Walsh, Defendants. No. CR 05-07-M-DWM. United States District Court, D. Montana, Missoula Division. November 23, 2005. *1070
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON VIEW RIDGE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a DIVISION ONE Washington nonprofit corporation, No. 85897-1-I Appellant, PUBLISHED OPINION v. WALTER GUETTER and MARIANN GUETTER, a married couple, Respondents, RONALD A. HAERTL and LESLIE KOLISCH, I
Domain Associates, LLC v. Nimesh S. Shahpublic domain
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DOMAIN ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., a Delaware ) limited liability company, JAMES C. BLAIR, ) BRIAN H. DOVEY, BRIAN K. HALAK, KIM ) P. KAMDAR, JESSE TREU, AND NICOLE ) VITULLO, ) ) Plaintiffs/Counterclaim ) Defendants, ) )
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OLEAN WHOLESALE GROCERY No. 19-56514 COOPERATIVE, INC.; BEVERLY YOUNGBLOOD; PACIFIC GROSERVICE, D.C. No. INC., DBA Pitco Foods; CAPITOL 3:15-md-02670- HILL SUPERMARKET; LOUISE ANN JLS-MDD DAVIS MATTHEWS; JAMES WALNUM; COLIN MOORE; JENNIFER A. NELSON; ELIZABETH DAVIS-BERG; LAURA OPINION CHILDS; NANCY STILLER; BONNIE VANDERLAAN; KRISTIN MILLICAN; TREPCO IMPORTS AND
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OLEAN WHOLESALE GROCERY No. 19-56514 COOPERATIVE, INC.; BEVERLY YOUNGBLOOD; PACIFIC GROSERVICE, D.C. No. INC., DBA Pitco Foods; CAPITOL 3:15-md-02670- HILL SUPERMARKET; LOUISE ANN JLS-MDD DAVIS MATTHEWS; JAMES WALNUM; COLIN MOORE; JENNIFER A. NELSON; ELIZABETH DAVIS-BERG; LAURA OPINION CHILDS; NANCY STILLER; BONNIE VANDERLAAN; KRISTIN MILLICAN; TREPCO IMPORTS AND
BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION The matter before the Court is Defendants Highmark Health, Highmark Inc., and Highmark Choice Company's (collectively "Highmark") second motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Presque Isle Colon and Rectal Surgery ("Plaintiff") instituted this action against Highmark alleging in its original complaint that Highmark violated Sections 1 and 2 of
Nathan Owen v. Lynn Cannonpublic domain
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE NATHAN OWEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 8860-CB ) LYNN CANNON, BRYN OWEN, ENERGY ) SERVICES GROUP, INC., a Delaware ) corporat
Phillips v. Spencerpublic domain
Emmet G. Sullivan, United States District Judge Plaintiff Sebastian Phillips ("Mr. Phillips"), a Naval Architect, and his architecture and engineering firm, Plaintiff Marine Design Dynamics, Inc. ("MDD"), allege that they have been effectively debarred from future government contracts with the United States Department of the Navy since 2011. Plaintiffs sued the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief and Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, a
Phillips v. Mabuspublic domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SEBASTIAN PHILLIPS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. No. 11-cv-02021 (EGS) RICHARD V. SPENCER, 1 Secretary of the Navy, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Sebastian Phillips (“Mr. Phillips”), a Naval Architect, and his architecture and engineering firm
Estate of D.B. v. Thousand Islands Cent. Sch. Dist.public domain
GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge Currently before the Court, in this civil rights action filed by the Estate of D.B. by its administrator Amy Briggs ("Plaintiff") against the Thousand Islands Central School District (the "District"), the Thousand Islands Central School District Board of Education (the "Board"), Frank House Superintendent of Schools in his individual capacity, John P. Warneck President of the Boa