Cases

BACHARACH, Circuit Judge. This antitrust class action stems from an allegation that Dow Chemical Company conspired with competitors to fix prices for polyurethane chemical products. Over Dow’s objection, the district court certified a plaintiff class including all industrial purchasers of polyurethane products during the alleged conspiracy period. The action went to trial, and the jury returned a verdict against Dow. The dis

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

Opinion filed November 30, 2021 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-19-00364-CV __________ SHELDON JOHNSON ET AL., Appellants V. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, AND LEAR CORPORATION, Appellees On Appeal

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

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge, with whom REYNA, Circuit Judge, joins, dissenting in the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc. I agree with Judge Moore that both The Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) and NOVA Chemicals Corporation (“NOVA”) mischaracterize the panel’s decision in this matter. The panel did not and could not effect sweeping changes in the law of indefiniteness. I write separately, however, because I

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE THE DOW CHEMICAL CO., and ) DOW BRASIL INDUSTRIA E ) COMERCIO DE PRODUTOS ) QUIMICOS, LTDA., ) ) C.A. No. N22C-08-002 Plaintiffs, ) PRW CCLD v. ) ) CITIC AGRI INVESTMENT CO., ) LIMITED, LP

DYK, Circuit Judge. The Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) filed suit against NOVA Chemicals Corporation (Canada) and NOVA Chemicals Inc. (Delaware) (collectively, “NOVA”), alleging infringement of claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,847,053 (the “'053 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,111,023 (the “'023 patent”). A jury found the asserted claims to be infringed and not invalid. NOVA appealed, a

BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., Chief Judge. Before the Court is an appeal and petition for writ of mandamus by Dow Corning; its shareholders, The Dow Chemical Company and Corning Incorporated; and other manufacturers of silicone products that have been named as co-defendants with Dow Corning in product liability suits relating to silicone implants.1 These parties contest the district court’s denial of their

VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judge: Our discussion of the background and procedural history of this litigation appears in Judge Winter’s lead opinion, 818 F.2d 145. In this opinion, we address the third-party claims of the chemical companies (“appellants”) against the United States which were dismissed by the district court. 611 F.Supp. 1221. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the district court did n

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. Hercules, Inc. (Hercules) and Crompton Co./Cie (Uniroyal) 1 raise constitutional *1036 claims and argue that the district court 2 erred in assigning and

USCA4 Appeal: 20-1712 Doc: 67 Filed: 01/10/2022 Pg: 1 of 43 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1712 WEST VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF GOVERNORS, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY; UNI

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1712 WEST VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF GOVERNORS, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; BAYER CORPORATION; BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP; BAYER CROPSCIENCE HOLDING, INCORPORATED; RHONE-POULENC, INCORPORATED, RHONE- POUL

517 F.3d 104 (2008) VIETNAM ASSOCIATION FOR VICTIMS OF AGENT ORANGE, Phan Thi Phi Phi, Nguyen Van Quy, Individually and as parent and natural guardian of Nguyen Quang Trung, Thuy Nguyen Thi Nga, His children, Duong Quynh Hoa, Individually and as administratrix of the estate of her deceased child, Huynh Trung Son, On behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Nguyen Thang Loi, Tong Thi Tu, Nguyen Long Van, Nguyen Thi Thoi, Nguyen Minh Chau, Nguye

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 24-1753 ______________ ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; THE COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NEW JERSEY SPILL COMPENSATION FUND; ACTING DIRECTOR NEW J

Filed 2/6/18 (unmodified opn. attached) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR CITY OF MODESTO et al., A134419 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (San Francisco County Super. Ct. v.

872 F.2d 1373 29 ERC 1529, 57 USLW 2632, 19 Envtl.L. Rep. 21,038 UNITED STATES of America, and State of Iowa, ex rel., IowaDepartment of Natural Resources, Appellees,v.ACETO AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS CORP., The Dow ChemicalCompany, Farnam Companies, Inc., MobayCorporation, and Velsicol ChemicalCorporation, Appellants,CIBA-GEIGY Corporation, Mobil Oil Corporation, and PlatteChemical Corpo

438 B.R. 89 (2010) In re ERIE COUNTY PLASTICS CORPORATION, Debtor. The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, Plaintiff v. The Dow Chemical Co., Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 08-11860-TPA. Adversary No. 09-1068. United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania. November 3, 2010. *90 Kirk B. Burkley, Scott E. Schuster, Bernst

RYAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting. My colleagues conclude that, as a matter of law, future profits contingent on taxpayer action are an appropriate component of the economic substance calculus only when that action comports with the taxpayer’s actual past conduct related to the transaction in question. I disagree. In my opinion, there is no such precedential rule of law and no warrant for creating one i

BLACKBURNE-RIGSBY, Associate Judge: This case involves alleged corporate espionage, and the issue of whether a corporation has a claim for trespass or conversion against another for rummaging through the corporation’s trash in search of “trade secrets” and other confidential information. Appellant Greenpeace, Inc. (“Greenpeace”) filed suit against appel-lees,

OPINION BERNICE BOUIE DONALD, Circuit Judge. Rose Anwar appeals the district court’s dismissal of her claims and argues that the district court erred in granting a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and a motion for summary judgment to Defendants-Appellees MEG International and The Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) respectively. Anwar also argues that the di