Cases

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 Tax Court 160 T.C. No. 3 3M COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ————— Docket No. 5816-13. Filed February 9, 2023. ————— P is the common parent company of the P consolidated group. As

OPINION LARKIN, Judge. Appellant challenges the district court’s dismissal of its claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Because the dismissal was based on the erroneous conclusion that a party may not maintain both a claim for breach of contract and a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing based on the same conduct, and because appellant st

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2932 ___________________________ In re: Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming Devices Products Liability Litigation ------------------------------ John Petitta lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff

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

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court John A. Tibbs and Margaret B. Tibbs, Respondents, v. 3M Company; 4520 Corp., Inc.; A.O. Smith Corporation; A. W. Chesterton Company; ABB Inc.; Air & Liquid Systems Corporation; AIW-2010 Wind Down Corp.; Amentum Environment & Energy, Inc.; Anchor/Darling Valve Company; Armstrong International, Inc.; Asbestos Corporation Limited ASCO, L.P.; Atlas Asbestos Co.; Atlas Turner, Inc.; AWT Air Company, Inc.; Bahnson, Inc.; Banner I

513 F.Supp.2d 322 (2007) BRADBURN PARENT TEACHER STORE, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. 3M (MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY). Civil Action No. 02-7676. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. May 14, 2007. *323 *324 Charles M. Jones, Jones Ost

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 07a0424p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ X Plaintiff-Appellant, - NIC

946 F.Supp. 596 (1996) Marilyn A. SICILIANO, Plaintiff, v. CHICAGO LOCAL 458-3M, Graphic Communications International Union and American National Can Company, Defendant. No. 95 C 6555. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. November 25, 1996. *597 Marilyn A. Siciliano, Chicago, IL, Pro Se. Wyvonnia

*555SUTTON, Circuit Judge, dissenting. Ordinarily, I would agree with the majority that the Rule 12(b)(6)-stage of this matter counsels in favor of permitting the litigation to proceed beyond the pleading stage. But antitrust standing is a pleading-stage inquiry and when a complaint by its terms fails to state a cognizable claim of antitrust injury we mus

THIRD DIVISION JUNE 13, 2007 No. 1-06-1304 3M COMPANY, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Cook County.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2005-CA-01860-SCT MICROTEK MEDICAL, INC. v. 3M COMPANY DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/31/2005 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. KENNETH M. BURNS COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LOWNDES COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: BRENDA B. BETHANY C. MICHAEL ELLI

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge. Today, we consider the circumstances under which a product produced pursuant to the claims of a. product-by-process patent is “on sale” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). This is important because, if “on sale” more than one year before the filing of an application for a patent on the governing claims, any issued patent is invalid and the right to exclude other

17 F.3d 1453 38 ERC 1259, 305 U.S.App.D.C. 100, 62USLW 2549,24 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,544 3M COMPANY (MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING), Petitioner,v.Carol M. BROWNER, Administrator of Environmental ProtectionAgency and Environmental Protection Agency, Respondents. No. 92-1126. United States Court of Appeals,District of Columbia Circuit.

SUTTON, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which BOGGS, C. J., SILER, BATCHELDER, GILMAN, GIBBONS, ROGERS, COOK, McKEAGUE, and GRIFFIN, JJ., joined. MARTIN, J. (pp. 459-70), delivered a separate dissenting opinion, in which DAUGHTREY, COLE, and CLAY, JJ., joined. *447OPINION SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Between 1987 and 2001, Nic

942 So.2d 122 (2006) MICROTEK MEDICAL, INC. v. 3M COMPANY. No. 2005-CA-01860-SCT. Supreme Court of Mississippi. October 5, 2006. *124 Brenda B. Bethany, Jackson, C. Michael Ellingburg, attorneys for appellant. Melody McAnally, W. Wayne Drinkwater, Jr., Jackson, attorneys for appellee. EN BANC. CARLSON, Justic

870 N.E.2d 881 (2007) 3M COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHN J. MORONEY AND COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. No. 1-06-1304. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division. June 13, 2007. *882 Elliot Wiczer, Robert Schulman, of Wiczer & Zelmar, LLC, Northbrook, for Appellant. Michael J. Lynch, Law Office of M

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

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. )

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge RANDOLPH. RANDOLPH, Circuit Judge: This petition for review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s assessment of civil penalties turns on the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2462, the direct descendant of a statute of limitations enacted more than a century and a half ago. There, are three questions. Does § 2462 apply to administrative proceedings? If so, is a proc