Legal Opinion
Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Hamtramck
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided December 22, 1993No. Civ. A. 93-70082PublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GADOLA, District Judge.
Plaintiff Sherwin-Williams Company has brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment that cleanup costs incurred by the City of Hamtramck (“the City”) are not recoverable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9626, and the Michigan Environmental Response Act (“MERA”), Mich.Con. Laws Ann. §§ 299.601-.618. Before the court is plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on its claim for declaratory relief and on the City’s counter-claim. For the reasons discussed…
2Cases cited22 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
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- United States v. Diebold, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Bancamerica Commercial Corp. v. Mosher Steel of Kansas, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1996
- Pierson Sand and Gravel, Inc. v. Keeler Brass Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1999
- United States v. W.R. Grace & Co. Kootenai Development, Corporation W.R. Grace & Co. Conn.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. Unocal Corp.District Court, C.D. California · 2003
- Orange Cnty. Water Dist. v. Alcoa Global Fasteners, Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.