Search for: "United States v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co."
Results 1 - 20
of 26
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 May 2023, 3:55 pm
Welcome back to the Cost Corner, where we provide practical insight into the complex cost and pricing regulations that apply to Government contractors. [read post]
23 Jul 2021, 11:20 am
Bartlett, The Reserve Mining Controversy (1980). [4] Reserve Mining Co v. [read post]
8 Aug 2020, 4:23 am
Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company, the court, applying Indiana law, granted summary judgment to a respirator manufacturer, on basis of the sophisticated intermediary defense, in a post-OSHA asbestos lung cancer case.[9] Similarly, in Bean v. [read post]
20 May 2019, 9:18 am
Co., 49 A.D.2d 250 (4th Dept. 1974) (distinguishing manufacturing and design defects, and pe [read post]
30 Dec 2016, 1:27 pm
The landowner in Hawkes purchased wetlands in northern Minnesota, seeking to mine them for peat moss used in landscaping. [read post]
30 Dec 2016, 1:27 pm
The landowner in Hawkes purchased wetlands in northern Minnesota, seeking to mine them for peat moss used in landscaping. [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 11:03 am
Third, the Manual authors state that the doubling argument assumes the “[n]onacceleration of disease. [read post]
6 Nov 2014, 5:00 am
Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co., 669 P.2d 744, 748 (N.M. [read post]
19 Sep 2013, 9:53 am
Pfizer, Inc., 712 F.3d 51 (1st Cir. 2013), and Harden Manufacturing Corp. v. [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 5:29 am
Fla., Oct. 29, 1998) Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing v. [read post]
28 Feb 2013, 8:10 am
Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co., 669 P.2d 744, 748 (N.M. [read post]
9 Apr 2012, 8:40 am
United States, 541 U. [read post]
3 Mar 2012, 5:36 pm
Fla., Oct. 29, 1998) Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing v. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:46 pm
Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co., 226 Cal. [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 10:04 am
Fla., Oct. 29, 1998) Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing v. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 8:07 am
Simplicity Manufacturing, 563 F.3d 38, 57 (3d Cir. 2009). [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 9:08 am
– Trading Markets.com, July 21, 2010 Consistent with Section 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(d), and 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on July 16, 2010, the United States lodged a Consent Decree with 163 defendants (each of which is identified in the proposed Decree) in United States of America v. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 3:17 pm
This Settlement Agreement proposes to compromise a claim the United States has at this Site for Past Response Costs, as those terms are defined in the Settlement Agreement. [read post]
18 Feb 2010, 10:34 am
Because those are federal statutes, they can’t be “preempted” the way state-law claims were in Buckman Co. v. [read post]
31 Jan 2010, 7:16 pm
“The United States brought this case to protect an important body of water, Pyramid Lake,” said Ignacia S. [read post]
