Legal Opinion
Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Whitacre
District Court, C.D. Illinois
Decided August 5, 1999No. 2:96-cv-02237PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
McCUSKEY, District Judge.
This case is before the court for ruling on two Motions filed by Plaintiff, Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM), a Motion for Summary Judgment (# 137) and a Motion to Stay (# 159). Following careful review, ADM’s Motion for Summary Judgment (# 137) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. In addition, ADM’s Motion to Stay proceedings regarding Count VII of its Amended Complaint (# 159) is GRANTED. ADM’s request to voluntarily dismiss Count IV of its Amended Complaint is GRANTED. This court is also providing notice to ADM that it intends to dismiss Counts V and VI…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Sandra L. Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
- Pepsico, Inc., a Corporation v. William E. Redmond, Jr., and the Quaker Oats Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995
- Illinois Gamefowl Breeders Ass'n v. BlockIllinois Supreme Court · 1979
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Urological Group, Ltd. v. Petersen (In Re Petersen)United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. Illinois · 2003
- Shelby Shore Drugs, Inc. v. Sielschott (In Re Sielschott)United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. Illinois · 2005
- Anderson v. HaleDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2001
- Seal v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2016
- Ohrstrom v. P.B. Ohrstrom & Sons, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2018
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.