Legal Opinion
Wright v. Dow Chemical U.S.A.
District Court, M.D. Tennessee
Decided October 8, 1993No. 3:92-0125PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
JOHN T. NIXON, Chief Judge.
Pending before the Court in the above-styled case are Defendants’ 1 Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. Nos. 18, 21, 22, 23). Defendants assert that all of plaintiffs’ claims relate to inadequate labeling or failure to warn and thus should be dismissed because such claims are barred as a matter of federal law. Defendant Southern Mill Creek Products Company further contends that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the company is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the motions for summary…
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
- 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
- Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Kawamata Farms, Inc. v. United Agri ProductsHawaii Supreme Court · 1997
- Arnold v. Dow Chemical CompanyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Bingham v. Terminix International Co.District Court, S.D. Mississippi · 1994
- Higgins v. Monsanto Co.District Court, N.D. New York · 1994
- Romah v. Hygienic Sanitation Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.