Cases

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION WERNER RATH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) C.A. No. N17C-08-228 ASB 3M COMPANY, et al. ) ) Defendants. ) OPINION Submitted: March 27, 2019 Decided: April 18, 2019 Upon Defendant Delmarva Power & Light Company ’s Motion for Summary Judgment, GRANTED. Upon Defena’ants Four Star Oz`l & Gas Compcmy, TRMI-H LLC, and Texaco Inc. ’s Motionfor Summarjy Jua'gment, GRANTED. Upon Defendant Sunoco (R&M), LLC ’s Motion for Summary J

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3553 ___________________________ Louis Gareis; Lillian Gareis Plaintiffs - Appellants v. 3M Company; Arizant Healthcare, Inc. Defendants - Appellees ___________________________ No. 18-3580 ___________________________ Louis Gareis; Lillian Gareis Plaintiffs -

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2899 ___________________________ In re: Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming Devices Products Liability Litigation ------------------------------ George Amador Plaintiff - Appellant

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBERT L. WILKINS, District Judge. Plaintiff 3M Company (“3M”) has sued Defendants Lanny J. Davis, Lanny J. Davis & Associates, PLLC, Davis-Block LLC (collectively the “Davis Defendants”), and Harvey Boulter, Porton Capital Technology Funds, Porton Capital, Inc. (collectively the “Porton Defendants”) for a number of claim

96 F.Supp.2d 1042 (2000) 3M UNITEK CORPORATION, 3M Innovative Properties Company and Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants, v. ORMCO COMPANY, Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff. And Related Counterclaim No. 99-10099-RAP(EX). United States District Court, C.D. California. February 24, 2000. *1043<

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

COOK, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which SILER, J., joined. SUTTON, J. (pp. 555-61), delivered a separate dissenting opinion. *539OPINION COOK, Circuit Judge. NicSand, Inc. (NicSand), a marketer of automotive abrasives, brought this antitrust action against its competitor, 3M Company (3M), alleging

R. Brooke Jackson, United States District Judge Defendants Tyco Fire Products, Chemguard and 3M move to dismiss plaintiffs' medical monitoring claims, arguing that Colorado's appellate courts have not recognized such a cause of action. Tyco and Chemguard alternatively request that the issue be certified to the Colorado Supreme Court. Several other defendants ask to join one or both of the motions to dismiss. I decline to certify the

Memorandum Opinion and Order KEITH STARRETT, District Judge. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants Defendant’s Motion to Exclude [208] the testimony of Darell Bevis. I. Background This is a product liability/silicosis case. Plaintiff worked around sandblasting for approximately one year in the late seventies. During that year, he spent a

Petition of Robert R. Dunn for certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in 3M Co., Inc., a Corp. v. Dunn, etc., 50 Ala. App. 329, 279 So.2d 132. Writ denied. HEFLIN, C. J., and MERRILL, HARWOOD, and MADDOX, JJ., concur.

ORDER DENYING REMAND Presently before the Panel is a motion, pursuant to Rule 7.6, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 436-38 (2001), by defendant Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M) to vacate the Panel’s order conditionally remanding this action from the Northern District of Alabama to the Northern District of Texas, its transferor court. Plaintiffs in the action oppose the motion to vacate and favor remand of the action.

218 F.Supp.2d 1094 (2002) Charles E. WOOD, Plaintiff, v. CROWN REDI-MIX, INC., d/b/a Crown Building Materials, Inc. and General Team and Truck Drivers, Helpers and Warehousemen, Local 90, Defendants. No. 4:01-CV-40127. United States District Court, S.D. Iowa, Central Division. August 29, 2002. *1095

HUGHES, Circuit Judge. 3M sued TransWeb for infringement of several patents. TransWeb sued for declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement of the patents. A jury found the patents to be invalid based on Tran-sWeb’s prior public use of the patented method. In accordance with an advisory verdict from the jury, the district court found the patents unenforceable due to

REYNA, Circuit Judge. This appeal deals with claim construction disputes arising out of 3M Innovative Properties Company and 3M Company’s (collectively, “3M”) allegations of patent infringement brought against Tredegar Corporation and Tredegar Film Products Corporation (collectively, “Tredegar”) in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (“district court”). 3M competes in the elastomeric laminate ind

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.

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge, dissenting, joined by Judges DAUGHTREY, COLE, and CLAY. In a recent dissent, Justice Stevens wrote nostalgically about times gone by, when most “highspeed driving took place on two-lane roads rather than on superhighways” and “when split-second judgments about the risk of passing a slowpoke in the face of oncoming traffic were routine.” Scott v.

RADER, Circuit Judge. On summary judgment, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. (3M) did not infringe Middleton, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 4,944,514 ('514 patent), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Because the district court failed to correctly construe the claims and determin

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 96-2199 ___________ Glen Wood, * * Plaintiff-Appellee, * * The Travelers Insurance * Company, * Appeal from United States

136 P.3d 1047 (2006) 2006 OK 28 3M DOZER SERVICE, INC., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Barbara Moore BAKER a/k/a Barbara J. Moore a/k/a Barbara Jean Baker; Spouse, if any, of Barbara Moore Baker, real name unknown; Karen Sue Moore; Spouse, if any, of Karen Sue Moore, real name unknown; Mark D. Stewart, Sherry L. Stewart; and their unknown heirs or devisees, Defendants/Appellees, and Debra K. Foster; Spouse, if any, of Debra K