Legal Opinion
Mathews v. Dow Chemical Co.
District Court, D. Colorado
Decided December 2, 1996No. 1:96-cv-01368PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS
BRIMMER, District Judge. *
Defendants, Thoro Products Company, Richard Edwin Newman, Richard Earnest Newman, and Earl D. Quinnell (collectively referred to as the “Thoro Defendants”), filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, Motion to Strike. Defendant Parks Corporation (“Parks”) also filed a Motion to Dismiss. The Court, having reviewed the parties’ briefs and being fully advised in the premises, FINDS and ORDERS as follows:
Background
This ease arises out of the discovery of chlorinated hydrocarbon contamination beneath the property of Plaintiffs, William H.…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Amcast Industrial Corporation and Elkhart Products Corporation v. Detrex CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993
- United Technologies Corporation v. Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1994
- Edward Hines Lumber Company v. Vulcan Materials Company, Osmose Wood Preserving, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1988
- Fmc Corporation v. United States Department of Commerce Ronald Brown, Secretary of Commerce, in His Official Capacity United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- R.R. Street & Co. v. Pilgrim Enterprises, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 2005
- United States v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- United States v. Vertac Chemical Corp.District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1997
- City of Tulsa v. Tyson Foods, Inc.District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 2003
- United States v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.