Legal Opinion

Hurd v. Monsanto Co.

District Court, S.D. Indiana

Decided September 25, 1995No. IP 94-983 C B/SPublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ENTRY

BARKER, Chief Judge.

This matter is before the Court on defendant Westinghouse Electric Corporation’s (‘Westinghouse”) motion to dismiss Counts 6 through 13 of the Second Amended Complaint and defendant Monsanto Company’s (“Monsanto”) motion to dismiss Count 3 of the Second Amended Complaint. For the reasons set forth below, Westinghouse’s motion is granted; Monsanto’s motion is denied.

J. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.

For purposes of defendants’ motions to dismiss, the facts allegéd in the Complaint are undisputed. This is an action brought by Alta Hurd and Clifford Rawley. Both Hurd and Rawley are…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Vaca v. SipesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of TeamstersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. Cruz v. BetoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  5. Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company and Nu-Car Carriers, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1984

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. SHATTUCK OWEN v. Snowbird Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 2000
  2. VNA Plus, Inc. v. Apria Healthcare Group, Inc.District Court, D. Kansas · 1998
  3. Zurbriggen v. Twin Hill Acquisition Co.District Court, E.D. Illinois · 2018
  4. Van Jelgerhuis v. Mercury Finance Co.District Court, S.D. Indiana · 1996
  5. Pascarella v. Swift Transportation Co.District Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2010

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API