M.D. Pennsylvania· 10/31/1989

United States v. Marisol, Inc.

Citations

725 F. Supp. 833
31 ERC (BNA) 1185
1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13696
1989 WL 138175

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

noting that although motions to strike are disfavored, “they do serve a useful purpose by eliminating insufficient defenses and saving the time and expense which would otherwise be spent in litigating issues which would not affect the outcome of the case”
noting that although motions to strike are disfavored, “they do serve a useful purpose by eliminating insufficient defenses and saving the time and expense which would otherwise be spent in litigating issues which would not affect the outcome of the case”
“[T]he court finds no persuasive authority which imposes a legal duty upon the Government to mitigate damages in a CERCLA action”
“Motions to strike are often viewed with disfavor because of their potential to be used as a dilatory tactic.”
“[M]otions to strike are often viewed with disfavor because of their potential to be used as a dilatory tactic.”
“[M]otions to strike are often viewed with disfavor because of their potential to be used as a dilatory tactic.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Nealon

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

66 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

40 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.