Cases

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 <

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 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

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

\:)wmm z@\ win mzc 29 2015 TO `- \/\"\/{om \`.ov\€) ~ C§LQ.€K 90 @@»/ac> (AW\~\\@ T>§-QS~® ‘Q»e,a Fma®\€ `SP:\) \/. O\,\\/EZ EEL\,\L+ Q\_ (AQ./@\ m 07»\?>~@0444#€,\/ Tr.‘e\n@_ \c>\c>€rz-e D£,OL\" C,\,QX`\).‘@ .JEW`CH ~ Arvw`|l@ T;

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Brad Lee Herold, as Executor of the : Estate of William L. Herold : : v. : No. 998 C.D. 2021 : Argued: June 23, 2022 University of Pittsburgh - of : Commonwealth System of Higher : Education and 3M Company; Abb : Motors and Mechanical, Inc. f/k/a :

WATERMAN, Justice (dissenting). I respectfully dissent and would hold the district court abused its discretion by compelling the deposition of Gelita's trial counsel Ruth Horvatich and production of her notes prepared in anticipation of litigation. First, Gelita never waived its attorney-client privilege or work-product protection by pleading or arguing the Faragher - Ellerth defense in district court. Tha

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

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE AEARO TECHNOLOGIES ) LLC, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. N23C-06-255-SKR CCLD ) ACE AMERICAN ) INSURANCE COMPANY, et ) al. )

34 Mass. App. Ct. 744 (1993) 616 N.E.2d 118 W. OLIVER TRIPP COMPANY vs. AMERICAN HOECHST CORPORATION. No. 91-P-953. Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk. December 17, 1992. July 14, 1993. Present: KASS, JACOBS, & GREENBERG, JJ. Floyd H. Anderson for the plaintiff. Thomas J. Dougherty (Edm

[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JUNE 6, 2007 No. 05-13834 THOMAS K. KAHN ____________

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ════════════ No. 06-0714 ════════════ Barbara Robinson, Individual

298 F.Supp. 115 (1969) CLEMENTS AUTO COMPANY, dba Southern Minnesota Supply Company, SM Supply Company, a Wisconsin corporation, and SM Supply Company, a Minnesota corporation, Plaintiffs, v. The SERVICE BUREAU CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 3-68 Civ. 240. United States District Court D. Minnesota, Fourth Division. March 31, 1969. *116

PICKETT, Circuit Judge. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, a Delaware corporation, brought this action alleging that its patent No. 2,714,066 1 had been infringed by the defendants, Bewal, Inc., which was sales agent for Polychrome Corporation, the manufacturer of th

685 N.W.2d 627 (2004) P.D.S.I. (3M Midwest Drivers) and Travelers Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Carolyn PETERSON, Surviving Spouse of Wayne Peterson, Appellee. No. 03-0260. Supreme Court of Iowa. August 11, 2004. *628 William D. Scherle and Aaron T. Oliver of Hansen, McClintock & Riley, Des Moines, for appellants.

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-1892 ___________________________ Unison Co., Ltd. lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Juhl Energy Development, Inc.; Juhl Energy, Inc.; Winona Wind Holdings, LLC; Winon

*263OPINION OF THE COURT FISHER, Circuit Judge. This case arises from an antitrust action brought by ZF Meritor, LLC (“ZF Meritor”) and Meritor Transmission Corporation (“Meritor”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) against Eaton Corporation (“Eaton”) for allegedly anticompetitive practices in the heavy-duty truck transmissions market. The practices at issu

Associate Chief Justice NEHRING, opinion of the Court: INTRODUCTION 11 In this case we answer a question of Utah law certified to us by the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The question is: "Is a signed agreement to donate preserved sperm to the donor's wife in the event of his death sufficient to constitute 'eonsent[ ] in a record to being the 'parent' of a child con

835 A.2d 141 (2003) Donald C. MELL, III, Plaintiff, v. NEW CASTLE COUNTY, Defendant. C.A. No. 03M-06-030-JRS. Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County. Submitted: August 27, 2003. Decided: September 9, 2003. Richard H. Cross, Jr., Law Office of Richard H. Cross, Jr., Wilmington, Delaware, for the Plaintiff. Timothy P. Mullaney, Sr., New

PER CURIAM. Edward Martin McKenna, Sr., appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Appellees and denying relief on his copyright infringement action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See McKenna v. Lee, No. CA-00-911-BR (E.D.N.C. July 2, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal cont