Legal Opinion
Gould, Inc. v. a & M Battery and Tire Service
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Decided January 29, 1997No. Civil Action 3:CV-91-1714PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CONABOY, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is Gould’s motion for partial summary judgment against certain defendants. 1 (Doc. 1422). Gould contends it has been established through discovery that the named defendants in this pending motion either arranged for or disposed of spent batteries at the Marjol Battery Plant located in the Borough of Throop, Lacakawanna County, Pennsylvania (hereinafter “the site”). We note Gould has filed a motion to withdraw this motion to nine (9) defendants, due either to settlement or to newly discovered facts. 2 For the reasons as set…
2Cases cited18 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
- Harsco Corp. v. Lucjan ZlotnickiCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1986
- James R. WHITE, Appellant, v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989
- Childers v. JosephCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- United States v. Atlas Lederer Co.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2000
- United States v. North Landing Line Construction Co.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 1998