Cases

ORDER DAVID C. NORTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter is before the court on defendant Crane Co.’s (“Crane”) motion for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the court denies Crane’s motion. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff James Wilson Chesher (“Chesher”), a former machinist mate and a commissioned officer in the U.S. Navy, together with his wife, plaintiff

SECTION: “G”(4) ORDER NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Margaret Leech’s (“Leech”) “Motion to Remand to State Court.”1 Having considered the motion, the memoranda in support and in opposition, the record, and the applicable law, the Court will deny the motion. I. Background <

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

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

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 3M COMPANY Plaintiff, C.A. NO.: N18C-07-089 AML CCLD Vv. NEOLOGY, INC. and ONE EQUITY PARTNERS VI, L.P., New Newer Neer” Nee Nee Nee Nee ree” Nee eee” Defendants. Submitted: March 25, 2019 Decided: June 28, 2019 Upon Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendant Neology, Inc.’s First Amended Counterclaim: Granted in Part, Denied in Part MEMORANDUM OPINION Rafael X. Zahralddin-Aravena, Esquire, Jonathan M. Stemerman, Esquire of ELLIOTT GREENLEAF,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA September 2025 Term FILED November 7, 2025 released at 3:00 p.m. No. 23-717 C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 25-1468 ___________________________ Richard R. Goecke, an individual Plaintiff - Appellant v. 3M Company Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 3M COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 11-cv-1527 (RLW) BOULTER, et al. Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Special Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to the District of Columbia Anti-SLAPP Act filed by Harvey Bou

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 3M COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 11-cv-1527 (RLW) BOULTER, et al. Defendants. AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Special Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to the District of Columbia Anti-SLAPP Act filed by Harvey Boulte

\E)!N.AL Iv\ n n)O."oz,,Ael~~@oc)V-H-~CR l q gm ~'O€ app .. `th€u:m _ Ht:\i.'¢:i`\¥‘:i."~lir€ \ z t C:"OU’L`T EH|§ The Cmm nlf.A~§-»lng.;_g_j$ The wm o*§ppea!$ . .S,XT¢,\ §§le O@-[UAS _ Sxxth D¢stnct , Q\A\llw lllllll , ny se.e;§` ~HT'T¢=J<Q)LMDA - ' ' MAR n 9 2015 Texarkana,T-exas \ l - " - Texar~xana, leean n . .'» :Dh`|*\'ré'~l( /H)A -JW ;-.\ r\u¢lv%pm r\ TL,,:P\QM%, Dwn)zb nova/lam PLPP€,\\NQT VS. `”“7\<¢ ama @{~ T°;Xr~d$ "HPP&\\£&, 010 HPQam Qmm<cw. §§qu mai¢

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, ORDER, AND JUDGMENT ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: This action arises out of the acquisition in late 2006 and early 2007 by Plaintiff Meda AB (“Meda”) of a European pharmaceutical business from Defendant 3M Company (“3M”). Meda alleges that 3M breached the acquisition agreement signed on November 8, 2006 (“Acquisition Agreement”), as well as the implied covenant of good faith and fair deali

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A23-0374 A23-0484 Andrea Anderson, Appellant, vs. Aitkin Pharmacy Services, LLC dba Thrifty White Pharmacy, Respondent, Geor

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.

746 F.Supp.2d 1216 (2010) EMERALD COAST UTILITIES AUTHORITY, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company, Solutia, Inc., and Fire Ram International, Inc., Defendants. Case No. 3:09cv361/MCR/MD. United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Pensacola Division. September 29, 2010. *1217 James Martin Corrigan, James M

(2008) THERMODYN CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Case No. 3:07 CV 2491. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division. December 17, 2008. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JACK ZOUHARY, District Judge. INTRODUCTION Before the Court are a number of motions. Plaintiff Thermodyn Corporati

265 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ROGER W. BROWN, PH.D. Plaintiff-Appellant,v.3M, Defendant-Appellee,andAIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC., Defendant-Appellee,andREVLON, INC., Defendant. No. 00-1552 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit September 18, 2001 Appealed from: United States Di