United States v. Chrysler Corp.
District Court, N.D. Ohio
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DOWD, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company’s motion for partial summary judgment (“3M,” Doc. No. 139) and Plaintiff United States’ motion for partial summary judgment as to liability (“U.S.,” Doc. No. 145). 1 Responses and replies have been filed with regard to both motions. 2
For the reasons that follow, Defendant 3M’s motion for partial summary judgment is denied with respect to the argument that the U.S., an owner and operator of the Site, is limited to an action for contribution under CERCLA § 113(f) to…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- United States v. Diebold, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Lujan v. National Wildlife FederationSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,768 Phil A. Street and Clyde H. Street v. J.C. Bradford & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Alco Pacific, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2002
- United States v. Chrysler Corp.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2001
- United States v. 175 Inwood Associates LLP.District Court, E.D. New York · 2004
- United States v. GurleyDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 2004
- Regents of the University of Minnesota v. United States of AmericaDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2022