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 “Nicholas v. Dow Chemical Co”
Akee v. Dow Chemical Co.public domain
293 F.Supp.2d 1140 (2002) Linda AKEE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, et al., Defendants. No. CIV. 00-00382BMK. United States District Court, D. Hawai`i. December 17, 2002. *1141 Glenn J. Stanford, Raymond J. Tam, Tam & Stanford, Honolulu, HI, Walter John Lack, Elizabeth L. Crooke, Brian J. Leinbach, Engstrom
Akee v. Dow Chemical Co.public domain
ORDER GRANTING SHELL’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING IN PART, AND DENYING IN PART¡ DOW’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING DOLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNT TV KURREN, United States Magistrate Judge. Before the Court, pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is Shell Oil Company’s, Shell Petroleum Inc.’s, Shell Chemical Company’s, and She
Henry v. Dow Chemical Companypublic domain
701 N.W.2d 684 (2005) 473 Mich. 63 Gary and Kathy HENRY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. Docket No. 125205, COA No. 4. Supreme Court of Michigan. Argued October 6, 2004. Decided July 13, 2005. *685 Trogan and Trogan P.C. (by Bruce F. Trogan)
BRITZ, INC. v. Dow Chemical Co.public domain
86 Cal.Rptr.2d 188 (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 177 BRITZ, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. F030476. Court of Appeal, Fifth District. June 29, 1999. Review Denied October 6, 1999.[**] *189 Frame & Matsumoto and Ted R. Fr
Foamseal, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Co.public domain
991 F.Supp. 883 (1998) FOAMSEAL, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, et al., Defendants. No. 96-71129. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. January 30, 1998. David G. Hetzel, Ronald W. Zdrojeski, David R. Greene, LeBouf, Lamb, Greene, & MacRae, LLP, Hartford, CT, Paul S. Lewandowski, Butzel Long, Detroit, MI, Thomas
DerGazarian v. Dow Chemical Co.public domain
836 F.Supp. 1429 (1993) John DerGAZARIAN and Terri L. DerGazarian, Plaintiffs, v. The DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Defendant. Civ. No. 93-5004. United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division. October 25, 1993. Nicholas H. Patton, Young, Patton & Folsom, Texarkana, James G. Lingle, Lingle & Corley, Rogers, for plaintiffs. Tilden P. Wright,
PER CURIAM: The recently enacted Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), Pub.L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4, alters the landscape for federal court jurisdiction over class actions. In addition to traditional class actions, CAFA covers certain other cases involving large numbers of plaintiffs, denominated “mass actions.” Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) brings this interlocutory appea
Terrance v. Dow Chemical Co.public domain
971 So.2d 1058 (2007) Sadie Mae TERRANCE, et al. v. THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, et al. No. 2006 CA 2234. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit. September 14, 2007. Writ Denied December 14, 2007. *1060 Lewis O. Unglesby, Robert M. Marionneaux, Jr., John F. McKay, Baton Rouge, *106
Akee v. Dow Chemical Co.public domain
272 F.Supp.2d 1112 (2003) Linda AKEE et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, et al., Defendants. No. 00-CV-382BMK. United States District Court, D. Hawai`i. July 21, 2003. *1113 *1114 *1115 *1116
Abrego v. the Dow Chemical Companypublic domain
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANTONIO ABREGO ABREGO, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. No. 06-55109 THE DOW CHEMICAL CO, et al.; D.C. No. CV-05-03608-RGK SHELL OIL COMPANY, d/b/a SHELL CHEMICAL COMPANY, and SHELL OPINION AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, Defendants-
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA FILED Spring 2025 Term June 4, 2025 _____________________ released at 3:00 p.m. ASHLEY N. DEEM, CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
The Dow Chemical Company v. Dart Industries, Inc., Brand Plastics Company v. The Dow Chemical Companypublic domain
475 F.2d 124 177 U.S.P.Q. 33 The DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Appellant,v.DART INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee.BRAND PLASTICS COMPANY et al., Appellees,v.The DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Appellant. Nos. 71-1371, 71-1372. United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. Feb. 20, 1973.Rehearing Denied April 5, 1973.
Nicholas Defiore v. Soc LLCpublic domain
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NICHOLAS DEFIORE; KEITH No. 21-15261 QUICK; NEIL ROBINSON; CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS; D.C. No. 2:20- SHAWN WHITEHEAD; PAUL cv-01981-APG MILLS, Jr.; RENE PEREZ; ROBERT HERRING; HOUSTON WILLAMS; ALLEN CAIN; RICHARD OPINION LANDRY; WARREN WOODS; ARNOLD ALEXANDER; DANIEL MERCANTON; DAVID WOLDERZAK; JAQUELYN JOUBERT-YOUNG; ABDELRAHIM KHAMIS; CURTIS WATSON; JOSEPH SCO
Lynn Sheen v. Nicholas Sheenpublic domain
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-18-00358-CV Lynn Sheen, Appellant v. Nicholas Sheen, Appellee FROM THE 419TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-FM-16-002867 THE HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ACCESS DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY OF RALPH TULIANO, DAVID WITTE, AND H.G. NEBEKER MARTIN GLENN, United States Bankruptcy Judge Before the Court is the Access Defen*664dants’1 Motion i
228 F.3d 275 (3rd Cir. 2000) BLACK HORSE LANE ASSOC., L.P., a New Jersey limited partnership; UNITED STATES LAND RESOURCES, L.P., a New Jersey limited partnership; UNITED STATES REALTY RESOURCES, INC., a New Jersey Corporation; and LAWRENCE S. BERGERv.DOW CHEMICAL CORPORATION; ESSEX CHEMICAL CORPORATION, a wholly owned subsidiary of DOW CHEMICAL CORPORATION, a Michigan CorporationBlack Horse Lane Associates, L.P., United States Land Res
Pritchard v. Dow Argo Sciencespublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION NORA BARRY FISCHER, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Presently before the Court are several motions related to Plaintiffs Robert T. Pritchard and Elizabeth Ann Pritchard’s proffer of expert testimony by Dr. Bennet Omalu and Defendants Dow Agro Sciences (“Dow”) and Southern Mill Creek Products of Ohio’s (“Southern Mill”) Daubert motion challenging s
Memorandum Opinion ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, JR., District Judge. Plaintiffs Dow AgroSciences, LLC, Makhteshim Agan of North America, Inc., and Cheminova, Inc. USA bring this action against Defendants National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) and James W. Balsiger (“Balsiger”)1 (collectively “Federal Defendants”) asserting violations of the Administrative Procedure Act,
Alexa Shipley v. Charles F. Gardner, Administrator of the Estate, of Nicholas H. McGuirepublic domain
Elizabeth Perry I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Cite as 2022 Ark. App. 22 2023.08.15 11:22:35 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS -05'00' DIVISION II 2023.003.2026 No. CV-21-45 9 Opinion Delivered January 19, 2022 ALEXA SHIPLEY APPELLANT
638 F.Supp.2d 508 (2009) DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. AW-09-824. United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division. July 29, 2009. David Eric Markert, David B. Weinberg, Eric Andreas, P. Nicholas Peterson, Wiley Rein LLP, Deborah Brand Baum, David E. Menotti, Pillsbury