Legal Opinion
Soo Line Railroad Ex Rel. Minnesota v. B.J. Carney & Co.
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided June 23, 1992No. Civ. 4-92-161PublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MacLAUGHLIN, Chief Judge.
This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The motion will be denied.
FACTS
This action' arises out of the alleged contamination of the Humboldt Yard property (the site) in Minneapolis. Plaintiff Soo Line Railroad Company (Soo Line) owned a parcel of property that included the site. For about fifty years Soo Line leased the site to B.J. Carney & Company, a Nevada corporation (the corporation). Soo Line alleges that for the duration of the leasehold, which ended in…
2Cases cited46 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- The State of New York v. Shore Realty Corp. And Donald LeograndeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
- United States v. Chem-Dyne Corp.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1983
- Martin v. Abbott LaboratoriesWashington Supreme Court · 1984
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Saraland ApartmentsCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1996
- Witco Corp. v. BeekhuisCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- Angeles Chemical Co. v. Spencer & JonesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- Kowalski v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 1994
- Steego Corp. v. RavenalDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1993
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.