Legal Opinion
United States v. Marisol, Inc.
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Decided October 31, 1989No. Civ. 88-1640PublishedCited by 93 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
NEALON, District Judge.
Currently before the court is the motion of the United States of America (the Government) seeking to strike certain affirmative defenses set forth in the answers of defendants Marisol, Inc. (Marisol), Inland Container Corporation (Inland), American Cyanamid Company (American Cyan-amid), and Smithkline Beckman Corporation (Smithkline). For the reasons that follow, the court will grant the Government’s motion in part and deny it in part.
I. Background
The Government commenced this action pursuant to Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- The State of New York v. Shore Realty Corp. And Donald LeograndeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
- Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale TransatlantiqueSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- United States v. Conservation Chemical Co.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1985
- Mardan Corporation v. C.G.C. Music, Ltd. And MacMillan Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by93 opinions
- United States v. Alcan Aluminum Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
- California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Alco Pacific, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2002
- United States v. KramerDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1991
- Tonka Corp. v. Rose Art Industries, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1993
- North Penn Transfer, Inc. v. Victaulic Co. of AmericaDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1994
88 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.