Cases

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 25, 2023. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-22-00130-CV MARCELL RODRIGUEZ SEGOVIA, Appellant V. HOUSTON METALS, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 129th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019-8

OPINION Sontchi, J. INTRODUCTION Before the Court is a motion for clarification or, in the alternative, reconsideration (the “Motion for Clarification”) with respect to the Court’s previous ruling that certain claims stemming from a civil action (the “NJ Environmental Litigation”) were to be remanded to New Jersey.1 The Motion for Clarification is brought by Oc

702 F.Supp.2d 320 (2010) ANIMAL SCIENCE PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHINA NATIONAL METALS & MINERALS IMPORT & EXPORT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. No. Civ. 05-4376(GEB). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. April 1, 2010. *325 Robert A. Magnanini, Esq., Stone and Magnanini, LLP, Richard E. Donovan, E

460 F.3d 470 MORTON INTERNATIONAL, INC.; Velsicol Chemical Corporation; NWI Land Management Co.; Fruit of the Loom, Incorporatedv.A.E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY; Airco Industrial Gases, f/k/a Airco Inc, a/k/a Air Reduction Company, Inc; Allied Chemical Corporation; Aluminum Company of America, (ALCOA); American Cyanamid Company; Armstrong World Industries; Arsynco, Inc.; Bailey Controls Co., f/k/a Bailey Meter Co; Becton-Dickinson &

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on his cause of action based upon a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Defendant’s submissions in opposition to plaintiff’s motion raised questions of fact regarding the manner in which plaintiff’s

Maxim, Inc. v Feifer (2018 NY Slip Op 03611) Maxim, Inc. v Feifer 2018 NY Slip Op 03611 Decided on May 17, 2018 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary

984 F.Supp. 160 (1997) The STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. SOLVENT CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., ICC Industries, Inc., Mader Capital Corporation, 3163 Buffalo Avenue Corporation, and Corigan Sanoian, Individually and d/b/a Quad Technologies, Inc., Defendants. SOLVENT CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., ICC Industries, Inc., and Mader Capital Corporation, Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. The UNITED STATES of America, E.I. Dupont De Nemours and

987 F.Supp. 182 (1997) TOWN OF OYSTER BAY, Plaintiff, v. OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION, The Marmon Corporation, Columbia Corrugated Container Corporation, Great American Industries, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of PLC Enterprises, Inc., G.A. Corrugated Corporation Great American Corrugated Container Corporation, Lin Pac, Inc., Lin Pac Containers International, Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lin Pac Group, Ltd., Lin Pac Corrugated Contain

Justice BOYD delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case, the owner of land that was contaminated by a neighbor seeks to recover for loss of the land’s market value based on “stigma” that remained after the contamination subsided. Although some federal and other states’ courts have recognized a legal right to recover stigma damages, we have never address

106 F.Supp.2d 737 (2000) MORTON INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED v. A.E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al. Velsicol Chemical Corporation, et al. v. A.E. Staley Manufacturing Company, et al. Nos. 96-3609 KSH, 96-3610 KSH. United States District Court, D. New Jersey. July 19, 2000. *738 *739<

OPINION OF THE COURT FUENTES, Circuit Judge. This appeal challenges the grant of summary judgment to one defendant, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. (“Tenneco”), in an action seeking contribution toward environmental cleanup costs. These costs have been or will be incurred by plaintiff-appellant 1 Mor

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OXY USA INC., and CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, No. 19-694C (Filed: November 17, 2022) Plaintiffs, Contract; Motion to Dismiss; v. RCFC 12(b)(1); RCFC

343 F.3d 669 MORTON INTERNATIONAL, INC.; Velsicol Chemical Corporation; NWI Land Management Co.; Fruit of the Loom, Incorporated,v.A.E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY; Airco Industrial Gases, a/k/a Air Reduction Company, Inc., f/k/a Airco, Inc.; Allied Chemical Corporation; Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa); American Cyanamid Company; Armstrong World Industries, Inc.; Arsynco, Inc.; Bailey Controls Co., f/k/a Bailey Meter Company; Becton-Di

Slip Op. 23- UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE Court No. 21-00361 UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, v. CROWN CORK & SEAL USA, INC., et ano., Defendants. Before: M. Miller Baker, Judge OPINION AND ORDER [Defendants’ motion to dismiss Counts I and II of the amended complaint is denied.]

Slip Op. 25-39 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE BIO-LAB, INC.; INNOVATIVE WATER CARE LLC; AND OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, and JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO., LTD. AND HEZE HUAYI CHEMICAL CO., LTD., Consolidated Plaintiffs, Before: Timothy M. Reif, Judge v. Consol. Court No. 24-00024 UNITED STATES,

758 F.Supp. 854 (1991) OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION and the Pillsbury Company, Plaintiffs, v. The POWER AUTHORITY OF the STATE OF NEW YORK, Defendants. GENERAL MILLS, INC., and Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. The POWER AUTHORITY OF the STATE OF NEW YORK, Defendant. Nos. CIV-90-208C, CIV-90-391C. United States District Court, W.D. New York. March 15, 1

22-2317 Alessi Equip., Inc. v. Am. Piledriving Equip., Inc. United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term 2023 Argued: November 7, 2023 Decided: November 21, 2025 No. 22-2317 AL

OPINION AND ORDER FEUERSTEIN, District Judge: Plaintiff Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Plaintiff’ or “Oxford”) commenced this action against Defendants Motherly Love Home Care Services, Inc. (“Motherly Love”), Robert Franzese, and Elizabeth Franzese (collectively, “Defendants”), seeking declaratory relief pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.

OPINION AND ORDER EATON, Judge: This consolidated action is before the court on the motions for judgment on the agency record pursuant to USCIT Rule 56.2: of plaintiffs/defendant-intervenors Arch Chemicals, Inc. (“Arch”) and Hebei Jiheng Chemical Company, Ltd. (“Jiheng”); and of plaintiffs/defendant-intervenors Clearon Corporation (“Clearon”) an

OPINION OF THE COURT GREENBERG, Circuit Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes on before the court on an appeal by Morton International, Inc. (“Morton”) from the district court’s order entered on March 30, 1999, dismissing Morton’s contribution claim against Red-land Minerals, Ltd. (“RML”) for want of personal jurisdiction. The