Legal Opinion

Grossman v. ARISTECH CHEMICAL CORPORATION

District Court, W.D. Michigan

Decided November 14, 1994No. 5:93-cv-00053PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF THE COURT

McKEAGUE, District Judge.

This case presents fundamentally a personal injury action. The Court’s jurisdiction is invoked based on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Now before the Court are several motions to declare the governing law. The Court has duly considered the motions and responses, and heard oral arguments on October 18, 1994.

Plaintiff Constance Grossman is an employee of MWR, Inc., a Michigan corporation. MWR had entered into a contract with Aris-tech Chemical Corporation to prepare a treatability study workplan for soil…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Christine Mahne v. Ford Motor Company Donald Petersen and Harold MacDonaldCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
  2. CPC International, Inc. v. Aerojet-General Corp.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 1993
  3. Meijer, Inc. v. General Star Indemnity Co.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 1993

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Chrysler Corp. v. Skyline Industrial Services, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Ram Products Co., Inc. v. ChaunceyDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 1997
  3. Extrusion Painting, Inc. v. Awnings Unlimited, Inc.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1999
  4. Norris & Associates, Inc. v. GRM Industries, Inc.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 1995
  5. Chesapeake Operating, Inc. v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2002

2 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