Earl Parris, Jr., individually, and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al.
District Court, N.D. Georgia
1Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ROME DIVISION EARL PARRIS, JR., individually, and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 4:21-CV-40-TWT 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER This is an action under the Clean Water Act. It is before the Court on Defendants E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (“DuPont”) and the Chemours Company’s (“Chemours”) Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 873]. For the following reasons, DuPont and Chemours’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 873] is DENIED. I. Background1…
2Cases cited20 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
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- ONTARIO SEWING MACHINE COMPANY, LTD. v. SmithSupreme Court of Georgia · 2002
- Rasnick v. Krishna Hospitality, Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 2011
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.