Cases

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

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court John A. Tibbs and Margaret B. Tibbs, Respondents, v. 3M Company; 4520 Corp., Inc.; A.O. Smith Corporation; A. W. Chesterton Company; ABB Inc.; Air & Liquid Systems Corporation; AIW-2010 Wind Down Corp.; Amentum Environment & Energy, Inc.; Anchor/Darling Valve Company; Armstrong International, Inc.; Asbestos Corporation Limited ASCO, L.P.; Atlas Asbestos Co.; Atlas Turner, Inc.; AWT Air Company, Inc.; Bahnson, Inc.; Banner I

328 S.W.3d 184 (2010) 3M COMPANY, Appellant, v. Hon. William ENGLE III, Judge, Perry Circuit Court, et al., Appellees. and Kentucky Mine Supply, et al., Real Parties in Interest. American Optical Corporation and 3M Company, Appellants, v. Delbert Miller, et al., Appellees. Nos. 2010-SC-000125-MR, 2010-SC-000163-MR. Supreme Court of Kentucky. December 16, 2010.</

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.

{¶ 1} Plaintiffs-appellants, Tom Mercer et al., appeal a decision of the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas ruling in favor of defendant-appellee, 3M Precision Optics, Inc., in a breach-of-contract action. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm the decision of the trial court. *Page 309 {¶ 2} On August 14, 2003, appellants Tom Mercer, d.b.a. Mercer Technical Services and Mercer Supply Company (col

638 S.E.2d 787 (2006) TULLIS DEVELOPMENTS, INC. v. 3M CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al. No. A06A1559. Court of Appeals of Georgia. November 8, 2006. *788 Robert J. Wilson, Ryan K. Patrick, Webb, Tanner & Powell, Mertz & Wilson, Lawrenceville, for appellant. Gregory W. Lancaster, Buford, for appellees. RUFFIN, Chief

OPINION {¶ 1} Plaintiffs-appellants, Tom Mercer, et al., appeal a decision of the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas ruling in favor of defendant-appellee, 3M Precision Optics, Inc., in a breach of contract action. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm the decision of the trial court. {¶ 2} On August 14, 2003, appellants Tom Mercer d.b.a. Mercer Technical Services

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1603 CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY, Defendant – Appellant, v. GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, Defendant – Appellee, and DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc., Plaintiff, and UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY; AMERICAN ELECTRIC CORPORATIO

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge RANDOLPH. RANDOLPH, Circuit Judge: This petition for review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s assessment of civil penalties turns on the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2462, the direct descendant of a statute of limitations enacted more than a century and a half ago. There, are three questions. Does § 2462 apply to administrative proceedings? If so, is a proc

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1391 DOROTHY E. SMITH, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Julian Jackson Smith, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SCHLAGE LOCK COMPANY, LLC, Defendant - Appellee, and AMETEK, INC., sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Haveg

Case: 12-60757 Document: 00512448918 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 21, 2013 No. 12-60757 Lyle W. Cayce

ACCEPTED 13-15-00506-CV THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 5/12/2016 3

WILKINSON, Circuit Judge: Dolores Salomon seeks to recover benefits under a Family Monthly Income Benefit Plan underwritten by Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Company, and offered by Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (“3M”) to its employees. In her suit against Transamerica and 3M, Salomon relies on the common law claims of breach of contract and estoppel, and on t

GEE, Circuit Judge: This appeal draws before us a number of cases dismissed by various trial courts for want of subject matter jurisdiction. In each case, the plaintiff was a worker at Avondale Shipyards, Inc., located in Jefferson Parish, south of New Orleans, who claimed damages resulting from silicosis contracted while he worked

MCLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge. This is an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) from a denial of a defense motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations. Plaintiff-appellee is the New Jersey Wood Finishing Company (N. J. Wood),

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 722 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 723 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE N

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HARVINDER SINGH, No. 17-35964 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:17-cv-00287- JCC AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. HARVINDER SINGH, No. 17-35967 Plaintiff-Appellan

205 F.Supp.2d 695 (2002) Laura MADDEN, Individually and as the Personal Representative of the heirs and estate of Thomas Madden, Jr. Plaintiff, v. ABLE SUPPLY COMPANY, et al. Defendants. No. CIV.A.G-02-194. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Galveston Division. May 27, 2002. *696 *697 P

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1924 Doc: 41 Filed: 06/12/2025 Pg: 1 of 17 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1924 STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA EX REL. MARK A. HUNT, In his capacity as Auditor, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. CAREMARKPCS HEA

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Dkt. # 19. Defendant, MGP Manufacturing, LLC (“MGP”), argues that Plaintiffs claims should be dismissed for