Cases

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2025 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

Case Number: 01-97-01142-CV 05/28/2002 Created for Data Conversion -- an event inserted to correspond to the mandate date of a process 05/28/2002 Case stored in record room 05/28/2002 Record returned to Court of Appeals 05/28/2002 Mandate issued 05/23/2002 Motion for Rehearing - Disposed proceeding denied 04/08/2002 Motion for Rehearing forwarded 04/08/2002 Motion for Rehearing - Filed 03/28/2002 Motion for Rehearing - Disposed Granted 03/28/2002 Opinion issued CA reversed; judg rend/part; re

Swan, Associate Justice, dissenting. Although the majority reverses the trial court’s declaratory judgment that the defendants were the rightful owners of Parcel 6-U Estate Carolina, it affirms the ruling that Marsh-Monsanto’s claim was time-barred because she first noticed bulldozers on the subject property in 1982, more than twenty years before she filed her lawsuit. Because this action should not hav

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Atlantic Richfield Company, E.I. du : Pont de Nemours and Company, NL : Industries, Inc., PPG Industries, Inc., : and The Sherwin-Williams Company, : Appellants : : v. : No. 1338 C.D. 2021 : The County of Montgomery, : Pennsylvania : Argued: December 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LISA MARIE MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 20-3261 (RDM) v. JEFFREY A. ROSEN1 et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On November 19, 2020, this Court issued a memorandum opinion and order “briefly staying” the e

862 So.2d 595 (2003) Ex parte MONSANTO COMPANY and Solutia, Inc. (In re Sabrina Abernathy et al. v. Monsanto Company et al.) 1011393. Supreme Court of Alabama. February 26, 2003. As Modified on Denial of Rehearing May 9, 2003. *598 Warren B. Lightfoot, Jere F. White, Jr., Harlan I. Prater IV, Adam K. Peck, an

This petition for a writ of mandamus arises out of three separate cases pending in the Calhoun Circuit Court that were consolidated during the pretrial proceedings.2 There are approximately 2,714 plaintiffs in the three cases, and each of them asserts a toxic-tort claim against Monsanto Company and other defendants (referred to collectively hereinafter as "Monsanto"). Monsanto petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the circuit cou

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOYNER, District Judge. This matter is presently before the Court on Motion of the Plaintiff for Class Certification. After careful consideration of the arguments and evidentiary materials submitted by the parties, we shall grant the motion. Statement of Relevant Facts Plaintiff Nancy J. Becker is the duly-elected Recorder of D

Opinion issued October 10, 2002 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas

887 S.W.2d 103 (1994) CRUM & FORSTER, INC., International Insurance Company, United States Fire Insurance Company, North River Insurance Company, and Commonwealth Lloyd's Insurance Company, Appellants, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Appellee. No. 06-92-00100-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana. September 19, 1994. Rehearing Overruled October 18, 1994. <

889 S.W.2d 570 (1994) CORNERSTONES MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, Appellant, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Armco, Inc., Armco Steel Company, and Turner, Collie & Braden, Inc., Appellees. No. C14-92-00204-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14 Dist.). November 10, 1994. Rehearing Overruled December 8, 1994. *572 Richa

GREENE, Judge. Plaintiff, llene Worth, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting Monsanto’s motion for summary judgment on her petition brought under the Missouri Service Letter Statute, § 290.140.1 Worth alleges on appeal that the trial court erred in granting the summary judgment for Monsanto because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether, under the laws of Missour

STEWART, Presiding Judge. Plaintiff, Monsanto Company, filed a petition in the trial court seeking to have eighty-five litigants, individuals and corporations, who had actions pending against it “interplead their respective claims for punitive damages against Plaintiff Monsanto Company.” The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s petition. We affirm but for a reason other than that given by the trial court. <

554 N.E.2d 1145 (1990) MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY AND FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Appellants (Defendants below), v. Robert GREGG, Appellee (Plaintiff below). No. 41A01-8903-CV-63. Court of Appeals of Indiana, First District. May 31, 1990. Rehearing Denied August 17, 1990. *1150 Joe N. Van Valer, Van V

784 F.Supp.2d 1247 (2011) Ms. H., individually and as mother and next friend of T.H., a minor, Plaintiff, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant. Civil Action No. 2:10cv247-WHA-SRW. United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division. May 12, 2011. *1249 Deborah Ann Mattison, Rachel Lee McGinley, Wiggins Chi

517 F.3d 129 (2008) Joe ISAACSON and Phyllis Lisa Isaacson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DOW CHEMICAL CO., Monsanto Co., Hercules, Inc., Occidental Chemical Corp., Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corporation, Maxus Energy Corp., Chemical Land Holdings, Inc., T-H Agriculture and Nutrition Co., Thompson Hayward Chemical Co., Harcros Chemicals, Inc., Uniroyal, Inc., C.D.U. Holding, Inc., and Uniroyal Chemical Company, Defendants-Appellees. J. Michael Twi

OPINION MEROW, Judge. In this Rails-to-Trails takings case, Plaintiff, the Chevy Chase Land Company (“CCLC” or “the land company”), moved for summary judgment against Defendant, the United States of America and Intervenor-defendant, Montgomery County, Maryland. Both Defendants have tendered cross-motions for summary judgment against Plaintiff, CCLC. The Columbia Country Club (“the Club

505 So.2d 443 (1986) MONTGOMERY DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Appellant, v. G. HEILEMAN BREWING COMPANY, INC., etc., et al., Appellees. No. 85-1275. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. November 26, 1986. Rehearing Denied May 4, 1987. Philip M. Burlington of Edna L. Caruso, P.A., and Montgomery, Searcy & Denney, P.A., West Palm Beach, for

SMITH, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: Tea sweepings, mixed with a percentage of lime and asafetida for the purpose of precluding their use as tea, were classified by the collector of customs as tea sweepings, and duty was assessed on the full weight of the mixture at 1 cent per pound under the provisions of paragraph 13 of the tariff act of 1913, which paragraph reads as follows:

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-24-00173-CV __________________ SOUTHERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, Appellant V. GRACE COMMUNITY CHURCH-THE WOODLANDS, IN