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 response costs (“U.S.,” Doc. No. 142). Responses and replies have been filed with regard to both motions. 1
For the reasons that follow, Defendant 3M’s motion for partial summary judgment is denied, and Plaintiff U.S.’s motion for partial summary judgment as to response costs is granted in part and denied in part.
I. Background
In a previous…
2Cases cited28 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
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- United States v. W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn.District Court, D. Montana · 2003
- United States v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc.District Court, W.D. New York · 2004
- California Ex Rel. California Department of Toxic Services v. Neville Chemical Co.District Court, C.D. California · 2002
- United States v. Puerto Rico Indus. Dev. Co.United States District Court · 2019
- El Paso Natural Gas Company LLC v. United States of AmericaDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2021
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.