Legal Opinion

Earl Parris, Jr. Individually, and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al.

District Court, N.D. Georgia

Decided July 10, 2026No. 4:21-cv-00040Unknown

1Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ROME DIVISION EARL PARRIS, JR. Individually, and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 4:21-CV-40-TWT 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER This is an action under the Clean Water Act. It is before the Court on Defendant 3M Company’s (“3M”) Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 890]. For the following reasons, 3M’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 890] is DENIED. I. Background1 1 The operative facts on the Motion for Summary Judgment are taken from the parties’…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  4. STOVALL & COMPANY, INC. v. TateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1971
  5. Walker v. GilesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2005

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API