Legal Opinion
Anderson v. Dow Agrosciences LLC
District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Decided May 14, 2003No. CIV-01-1939-HEPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
HEATON, District Judge.
This case is before the Court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have responded in opposition to the motion. Upon review, the Court determines defendant’s motion should be granted in part and denied in part. 1
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). When applying this standard, the…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. GarrettSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Kenneth Ray Meade v. Grubbs, Badge No. 128, Individually and as a Deputy Sheriff of the County of OklahomaCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1988
- Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. MortierSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Peterson v. BASF Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2004
- Mortellite v. Novartis Crop Protection, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2003
- Hydronic Energy v. Rentzel Pump Mfg.Nebraska Court of Appeals · 2013
- Young v. SpencerCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2011