Legal Opinion
Arnold v. Dow Chemical Company
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 14, 2001No. B143708PublishedCited by 39 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
NOTT, J.
Appellants Ashley and Alexa Arnold, through Michelle Arnold, as guardian ad litem, appeal from a judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of respondents Q.B. Scott Company, Inc. (Scott), Lumber City Corporation (Lumber City), Ezell Nursery Supply, Inc. (Ezell), Dow Agrosciences, LLC, and The Dow Chemical Company (collectively referred to as Dow), Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. (Van Waters), FMC Corporation (FMC), and Bayer Corporation (Bayer); collectively referred to as respondents.
At issue is whether the preemption provisions of the Federal…
2Cases cited48 opinions
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Freightliner Corp. v. MyrickSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. MortierSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- In Re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, & Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2010
- Chavez v. Glock, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2012
- Pannu v. Land Rover North America, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2011
- Xavier v. Philip Morris USA Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2011
- Jackson v. General Motors Corp.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2001
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.