Cases

Appeals unanimously dismissed without costs {see, Loafin’ Tree Rest, v Pardi [appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 985). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Gerace, J. — Reargument.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.

HAZOURI, J. George R. Harper, III, et al. petition this court for a writ of certiorari to review an order of the Broward County circuit court denying their motion to lift the stay in consolidated state court fraud actions, pending disposition of Respondents’ subsequently filed actions in federal court. We agree with Petitioners that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law and, therefore, quash the sta

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and final order of dismissal of complaints against defendants Arnone, Hedin, Casker, Kennedy and Drake Architects and Landscape Architects, P. C. (Habiterra Associates), Hercules Incorporated and Lees Carpeting reinstated. Memorandum: Plaintiffs in these four negligence actions consolidated for discovery seek damages for personal injuries allegedly resulting from exposure to toxic materials

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs (see, Kihl v Pfeifer, 94 NY2d 118, 122-123). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Gerace, J. — Discovery.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

259 S.W.3d 800 (2007) E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, Appellant, v. SHELL OIL COMPANY, Appellee. No. 01-07-00118-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.). November 15, 2007. Rehearing Overruled March 28, 2008. *801 Charles T. Miers, Abbott, Simses & Kuchler, APLC, Houston, TX, for Appellant.

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

Opinion issued November 15, 2007 In The Court of Appeals For The

EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR., CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Clarification Regarding Dispositive Motions Order No. 1 ("DMO 1"), Class Membership and Causation ("Motion for Clarification") (ECF No. 2814), in which Defendant incorporated its Overview Brief on Causation Issues ("Overview on Causation") (ECF No. 2813), Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for

EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE *869This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Under Rule 56 or for Determination of Issues Under Rule 16(C) (ECF No. 820) and Defendant's Counter-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Application of the Leach Settlement Agreement (ECF N

TRANSFER ORDER KATHRYN H. VRATIL, Acting Chairman. Before the Panel:* Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, defendant E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) moves to centralize this litigation in the Southern District of Ohio or, alternatively, in the Southern District of West Virginia. This litigation currently consists of twenty-six actions pending in the Southern District o

TERESHKO, J., This case presents an appeal from this court’s order of May 3, 2001, granting defendant’s petition, after oral argument, for change of venue to Bradford County pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1006 (d)(1). This personal injury action was brought in Philadelphia County against the defendant, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, by plaintiffs Jason Wood Sr. and Holly Wood. The defendant petitioned this court

LARSON, Senior District Judge. Bessie R. Strong, Administratrix of the Estate of Carl R. Strong, her deceased husband, brought actions sounding in negligence, strict liability, express warranty, and implied warranty in connection with the death of Mr. Strong. Mrs. Strong appeals from the district court’s1 denial of a new trial following a directed verdict for defendant Norton McMurray Manufacturi

Terry, P. J.: Plaintiff, W. Percival Johnson, has brought this action against defendants Roy V. Jackson and E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, a Delaware corporation, hereinafter referred to as duPont, to recover for injuries allegedly suffered by the plaintiff due to the alleged negligence of the defendants. duPont, pursuant to Rule 56, Del. C. Ann. has moved for summary judgment in its favor

909 P.2d 1 (1995) 121 N.M. 120 Denise I. PARKER (f/k/a Denise I. Gillette) and Michael D. Parker, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO., INC., Defendant-Appellee. No. 15,570. Court of Appeals of New Mexico. July 6, 1995. *3 Carolyn N. Merchant, Turpen & Merchant, Remo E. Gay, Jr.,

829 A.2d 707 (2003) Jason WOOD, Sr. and Holly Wood, H/W, Appellants, v. E.I. du PONT de NEMOURS AND COMPANY, Appellee. Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Argued April 8, 2003. Filed July 17, 2003. *708 Eugene D. McGurk, Philadelphia, for appellants. Raymond M. Ripple, Wilmington, DE, for appellee. BEFORE: JOHNSON, FORD

793 F.Supp. 140 (1991) Terry BOLEN, Plaintiff, v. E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 91-CV-40208-FL. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, S.D. at Flint. December 10, 1991. On Motion for Reconsideration January 9, 1992. Glen N. Lenhoff, Flint, Mich., for plaintiff. Richard M. Tuyn, Birmingham, Mich., for defe

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER BALLANTINE, ■ District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the motion of the plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Commission), for the entry of a protective order limiting discovery sought by the defendant, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (du Pont) and on the motion of the defendant du Pont for further discovery or, in the alternative, a motion for an order comp

The plaintiff was employed as a clay miner by the Parker-Russell Mining Manufacturing Company in its clay mining operations at Wellsville, Missouri. On April 17, 1929, while engaged in his work of mining clay, and in placing dynamite preparatory to blasting, he was injured by a premature explosion of the dynamite, which resulted in the loss of sight of both eyes, a ruptured ear drum, and other serious injuries about his face, head, and arms. Plaintiff's evidence was well nigh conclusive that

Rodney, J., delivering the opinion of the Court: As the sarnie question is presented by the demurrers in all three cases, they will be considered together. In the present cases, arising upon demurrers to the declarations, we shall assume those facts which the declarations disclosed: 1. That the death of Lewis W. Handy was caused by the negligence of the third person tor

442 F.Supp. 821 (1977) E. I. du PONT de NEMOURS AND COMPANY, a corporation, Petitioner, v. John F. FINKLEA, Director of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, and Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Respondents. Civ. A. No. 77-2059-CH. United States District Court, S. D. West Virginia, Charleston Division. December 20, 1977.</