Legal Opinion
Alliedsignal, Inc. v. Amcast International Corp.
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided January 12, 2001No. C-3-92-013PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION AND ENTRY AWARDING PLAINTIFF THE SUM OF $3060.00 FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES INCURRED AS A RESULT OF DU-PLICATIVE TRIAL PREPARATION MADE NECESSARY BY COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT’S UNTIMELY NOTIFICATION THAT SHE WOULD BE SEEKING A CONTINUANCE; FINDINGS OF FACT; EXPANDED OPINION; CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROCEDURES SET FORTH TO BE FOLLOWED BY COUNSEL
RICE, Chief Judge.
For a number of years, the Plaintiff disposed of waste from a coal tar products plant it operated in an abandoned sand and gravel pit in Ironton, Ohio, known as the Goldcamp Disposal Area (“GDA”). The Defendant, which operated a foundry in…
2Cases cited56 opinions
- Landgraf v. USI Film ProductsSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- United States v. LopezSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
- United States v. MorrisonSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Key Tronic Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Gencorp, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Olin Corporation, Defendant-Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2004
- Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. Unocal Corp.District Court, C.D. California · 2003
- United States v. Consolidation Coal Co. Triangle Wire & Cable, Inc., Third-Party Neville Chemical Co., Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2003
- Lockheed Martin Corporation v. United StatesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2014
- New York v. SOLVENT CHEMICAL CO., INC.District Court, W.D. New York · 2010
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.