Legal Opinion
Haber Land Co. v. Am. Steel City Indus. Leasing, Inc.
District Court, S.D. Indiana
Decided May 3, 2019No. 1:18-cv-04091-JMS-MJDPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
III
DISCUSSION
Caterpillar's arguments fall generally into two categories. The first is comprised of fundamentally legal arguments-namely, that Haber's nuisance, illegal dumping and TSCA claims fail as a matter of law and would fail as a matter of law regardless of the detail Haber may add to its complaint. Mosey's argument, applicable just to Haber's nuisance claim, also falls into this first category.
The second includes pleading arguments. Caterpillar broadly contends that Haber has missed the mark in pleading plausible claims against it.4
The Court begins by addressing the legal arguments…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Camreta v. GreeneSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Chicago Building Design, P.C. v. Mongolian House, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2014
- Thomas Chapman v. Yellow Cab CooperativeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2017
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- The Estate of Richard S. Daniels, by and through Julie Lyford in her capacity asSupreme Court of Vermont · 2022
- Adams v. Atlantic Richfield CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2022
- Gary/Chicago International Airport Authority v. Honeywell International IncDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2020