1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. SMITH v. UNION CARBIDE CORP.
 

SMITH v. UNION CARBIDE CORP.

Civil Action No. 13-6323.

Smith, v. UNION CARBIDE CORP., ET AL., SECTION: "J" (5).

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

October 3, 2014.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Miriam P. Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey A. O'Connell, Nemeroff Law Firm, Amanda Jones Ballay, Landry, Swarr & Cannella, LLC, Christopher B. Norris, Nemeroff Law Firm, David Ryan Cannella, Cannella Law Firm, LLC, Frank J. Swarr, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Mickey P. Landry, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Philip C Hoffman, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Rick Nemeroff, Nemeroff Law Firm & Roderick S. Marshall, Nemeroff Law Firm.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Ernest G. Foundas, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, McGready Lewis Richeson, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Melissa M. Desormeaux, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Michael H. Abraham, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Milele N. St. Julien, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & R. Scott Masterson, Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP.

Dow Chemical Company, Defendant, represented by David Mark Bienvenu, Jr., Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, John Allain Viator, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Lexi T. Holinga, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC & Tam Catherine Bourgeois, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC.

Ethyl Corporation, Defendant, represented by David Mark Bienvenu, Jr., Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, John Allain Viator, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Lexi T. Holinga, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC & Tam Catherine Bourgeois, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC.

ORDER AND REASONS

CARL J. BARBIER, District Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Miriam P. Smith's Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 62), which is unopposed. Having considered the motions and memorandum of counsel, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that Plaintiff's motion should be GRANTED for the reasons set forth more fully below.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases