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 “MILES v. 3M COMPANY”
Kwame Raoul v. 3M Companypublic domain
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-3031 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ex rel. KWAME RAOUL, Attor- ney General of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. 3M COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal
Rath v. 3M Companypublic domain
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE WERNER RATH, ) Plaintiff, § v. § C.A. No. N17C-08-228 ASB 3M COMPANY, et al. § Defendants. § M Submitted: March 27, 2019 Decided: April 5, 2019 Upon Defendam Oyj Partek Ab ’s Motl`onfor Summary Judgment, GRANTED. Loreto P. Rufo, Esq., (arguea’) of Rufo Associates PA, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneyfor Defena’ant Thomas C. Crumplar, Esq. (argued), of Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Donald P. Blydenburgh, Esq. and Patrick I. Andrews
131 Miles, L.L.C. v. 3M&B, L.L.C.public domain
[Cite as 131 Miles, L.L.C. v. 3M&B, L.L.C., 2021-Ohio-3198.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 131 MILES, L.L.C., ET AL., : Plaintiffs, : No. 109558 v. : 3M&B, L.L.C., ET AL.,
Downs v. 3m Companypublic domain
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
Hayden v. 3M Co.public domain
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
3M Company v. Simeon Johnsonpublic domain
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
Emerald Coast Utilities Authority v. 3M Co.public domain
746 F.Supp.2d 1216 (2010) EMERALD COAST UTILITIES AUTHORITY, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company, Solutia, Inc., and Fire Ram International, Inc., Defendants. Case No. 3:09cv361/MCR/MD. United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Pensacola Division. September 29, 2010. *1217 James Martin Corrigan, James M
3M Co. v. Johnsonpublic domain
895 So.2d 151 (2005) 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. Simeon JOHNSON, James Curry, Bobby Joe Lawrence and Phillip Pate. No. 2002-CA-01651-SCT. Supreme Court of Mississippi. January 20, 2005. Rehearing Denied March 24, 2005. *154 Donna Brown Jacobs, John C. Henegan, Jackson, W. Wayne
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ABDUL K. KALLON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE The plaintiffs in this case are West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority (the “Authority”), in its individual capacity, and Tommy Lindsey, Lanette Lindsey, and Larry Watkins (collectively “Representative Plaintiffs”), who bring this action both individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated.
FILED January 30, 2025 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE JOUMANA B. AL HAYEK, and ) No. 39989-3
Island Mortg. of New Jersey v. 3mpublic domain
860 A.2d 1013 (2004) 373 N.J. Super. 172 ISLAND MORTGAGES OF NEW JERSEY and Perennial Lawn Care, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 3M (MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY), Defendant. Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County. June 30, 2004. *1014 Daniel
Wolfe v. 3M Short-Term Disability Planpublic domain
176 F.Supp.2d 911 (2001) Jean E. WOLFE, Plaintiff, v. 3M SHORT-TERM DISABILITY PLAN and 3M Long-Term Disability Plan, Defendants. No. Civ. 99-1902 JRT/FLN. United States District Court, D. Minnesota. September 25, 2001. *912 Katherine L. MacKinnon, Mackinnon Law Office, St. Louis Park, MN, and Matthew B. Newman, Newman Law Office
Jolly v. General Electric Companypublic domain
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals Beverly Dale Jolly and Brenda Rice Jolly, Respondents, v. General Electric Company, et al., Defendants, Of whom Fisher Controls International LLC and Crosby Valve, LLC are the Appellants. Appellate Case No. 2017-002611 Appeal From Spartanburg County Jean Hoefer Toal, Acting Circuit Court Judge Opinion No. 5858 Heard November 2, 2020 – Filed September 1, 2021
3M Co. v. Dunnpublic domain
*333ON REHEARING Appellee, in its application for rehearing, contends that this court improperly took judicial notice of the fact that “any point seven miles north of Satsuma on Highway 43 must be in Mobile and not Pike County.” In support of its contention, appellee cites us to the case of Waters v. State, 117 Ala. 189, 23 So. 28, wherein the Supreme Court said:
FiLED IN 5TH COURT OF APPEALS I5 fPR 2g PH g: gO CAUSE NO. QS-14-O151O-CV LISA &‘STZ. CIR< IN THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS TRENTS. GRIFFIN Appellant, V. AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY Appellee. On appeal from the
Lessord v. General Electric Companypublic domain
258 F.Supp.2d 209 (2002) John LESSORD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., et al., Defendants. No. 01-CV-6103. United States District Court, W.D. New York. August 29, 2002. *210 Alan J. Knauf, Knauf & Shaw LLP, Rochester, NY, for plaintiffs. S. Paul Battaglia, Bond, Schoeneck & King, Syracuse, NY, for Gene
Select Building Systems, Inc. and Tri-Bar Ranch Company, Ltd. v. Robertson Electric, Inc.public domain
FILED IN NO. 13-212 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 09/11/15 11:24:40 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk TAMI L. WOLE'F, C.S.R. PHONE: (830) 331-8286 NO. 13-212 ROBERTSON ELECTRIC, INC. ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT ) VS . ) 216TH JUD
ACCEPTED 13-15-00506-CV THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 5/12/2016 3
BRYSON, Circuit Judge. Exxon Research and Engineering Co. is the assignee of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,292,705 (“the '705 patent”) and 5,348,982 (“the '982 patent”), which are directed to improvements in a method for converting natural gas into liquid hydrocarbon products. Exxon brought suit against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims, asserting that the government infring
E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company v. Glen Strongpublic domain
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2006-CA-01005-SCT E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY v. GLEN STRONG AND CONNIE STRONG DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/17/2006 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. BILLY JOE LANDRUM COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: JONES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: JOHN G. CORLEW DEBORAH DEROCHE KUCHLER