Legal Opinion
Acme Printing Ink Co. v. Menard, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Decided December 5, 1994No. 89-C-834PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION AND ORDER
WARREN, District Judge.
Now before the Court are several motions in the above-captioned case. Plaintiff Acme Printing Ink, Co. (“Acme”) has moved the Court for partial summary judgment against defendant Menard, Inc. (“Menard”) as to Me-nard’s liability under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6972, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9607. For the following reasons, this motion will be granted in part and denied in part. Also before the Court are the “fast-track” summary judgment…
2Cases cited46 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
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
- The State of New York v. Shore Realty Corp. And Donald LeograndeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. Unocal Corp.District Court, C.D. California · 2003
- Foster v. United StatesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1996
- Delaney v. Town of CarmelDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1999
- Interfaith Community Organization v. Alliedsignal, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1996
- Acme Printing Ink Co. v. Menard, Inc.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1995
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.