Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “ZIMMER v. 3M COMPANY”
Alaimo v. 3M Co.public domain
*705 SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiffs-Appellants Minette Alaimo and Susan Alaimo, pro se, appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Brieant, /.), granting summary-judgment to Defendants-Appellees. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history. We review orders granting
Alaimo v. 3M Co.public domain
*705 SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiffs-Appellants Minette Alaimo and Susan Alaimo, pro se, appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Brieant, /.), granting summary-judgment to Defendants-Appellees. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history. We review orders granting
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
Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc.public domain
741 F.Supp. 509 (1990) STRYKER CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. ZIMMER, INC. and Zimmer-Smoyer Associates, Inc., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 84-2399. United States District Court, D. New Jersey. June 15, 1990. *510 Andora, Palmisano, Geaney & Romano by John F. Geaney, Jr., Elmwood Park, N.J., Morgan & Finnegan by John A. Diaz, Chri
Stanley Cole v. Exxon Mobil Corporationpublic domain
Order filed December 1, 2022 In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________ NO. 14-22-00756-CV ____________ STANLEY COLE, Appellant V. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Appellee On Appeal from the 333rd District Court
JOAN N. ERICKSEN, United States District Judge *912The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers cases "involving one or more common questions of fact" to a transferee court "for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings." 28 U.S.C. § 1407
Igwe v. Skaggspublic domain
MEMORANDUM KEARNEY, District Judge Police officers driving through intersections in response to an emergency must be alert to the presence of innocent drivers possibly unaware of the officer’s perceived need to’ speed through a red traffic signal. Police departments may purchase equipment to transmit a signal to the traffic controller device requesting a change in the color of approaching traffic lights. Our so
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ANN D. MONTGOMERY, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION On February 15, 2013, the undersigned United States District Judge heard oral argument on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and on the parties’ motions to exclude expert testimony. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ summary judgment motion is denied. Plaintiffs summary judgment motio
Zimmerman v. Crothallpublic domain
OPINION PARSONS, Vice Chancellor. This case addresses the allegations of a minority unitholder in a privately held medical device company. The unitholder is the co-founder and former CEO of the company. He became a minority stakeholder after accepting investments in the company in exchange for units and after he sold some of his own units. The company is managed by a board of directors under its limited liab
SARAH S. VANCE, Chair Before the Panel :* Plaintiffs in one action (Papasan ) move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of California. This litigation currently consists of three actions pending in three districts, as li
United States v. Merck & Co.public domain
AMENDED MEMORANDUM JONES, II, District Judge. In Civil Action No. 10-4374, Relators Stephen A. Krahling and Joan A. Wlo-chowski (“Plaintiffs”) bring this qui tam action in accordance with the False Claims Act (“FCA”), pursuant to -31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-33. Relators allege that their former employer, Defendant Merck & Co., Inc. (“Merck”) fraudulently misled the government and omitted, c
Basf Plant Science, Lp v. Commonwealth Scientificpublic domain
Case: 20-1415 Document: 62 Page: 1 Filed: 03/15/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ BASF PLANT SCIENCE, LP, Plaintiff-Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION, Defendant-Cross-Appellant ------------------------------------------------- COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC
Basf Plant Science, Lp v. Commonwealth Scientificpublic domain
Case: 20-1415 Document: 62 Page: 1 Filed: 03/15/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ BASF PLANT SCIENCE, LP, Plaintiff-Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION, Defendant-Cross-Appellant ------------------------------------------------- COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC
State v. Stowerspublic domain
177 Wis.2d 798 (1993) 503 N.W.2d 8 STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Roy E. STOWERS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-0171-CR. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin. Submitted on briefs June 3, 1993. Decided June 17, 1993. *800 For the defendant-appellant the cause was submitted on the brief
Tradesmen International, Incor v. John Blackpublic domain
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Nos. 11-3715, 12-2032 TRADESMAN INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. JOHN BLACK, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants.
SCSC Corp. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co.public domain
536 N.W.2d 305 (1995) SCSC CORP., formerly known as Schloff Chemical and Supply Company, Petitioner, Respondent, v. ALLIED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, as Successor in Interest to AID Insurance Company, Tower Insurance Company, Petitioners, Appellants. Nos. C2-93-1408, C8-93-1414 and C3-93-1630. Supreme Court of Minnesota. August 18, 1995. Clarification Denied Sep
SCSC Corp. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co.public domain
533 N.W.2d 603 (1995) SCSC CORP., Formerly Known as Schloff Chemical and Supply Company, Petitioner, Respondent, v. ALLIED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, as Successor in Interest to AID Insurance Company and Tower Insurance Company, Petitioners, Appellants. Nos. C2-93-1408, C8-93-1414 and C3-93-1630. Supreme Court of Minnesota. June 16, 1995.
Dana-Farber Cancer Inst., Inc. v. Ono Pharm. Co.public domain
Hon. Patti B. Saris, Chief United States District Judge TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...60 FINDINGS OF FACT...60 I. Scientific Background...60 A. The Immune System and Receptor-Ligand Signaling...60 B. Experimental Methods...63 II. Discover
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE LONGPATH CAPITAL, LLC, ) a Delaware limited liability company, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) C.A. No. 8094-VCP v. ) ) RAMTRON INTERNATIONAL ) CORPORATION,
Ford, David Eugenepublic domain
^ pra$£ p,o* (S , 6}UrV C-f- CnY>\inou| flppgJs Ifee^W oKfato? [9,-^-0050 ^rR AheM_ vL ikmikr^o^j^^ M^" Floor )r?Mi khudae jOt) tit 9to