Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffmotioncorporation
plaintiffmotioncorporation

Related Cases

State of Wyo. v. U.S., 933 F.Supp. 1030
View Case »
Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Stroh Die Casting Co., 116 F.3d 814, 44 ERC 1897, 27 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,087
View Case »
Earth Island Institute v. Pengilly, 376 F.Supp.2d 994
View Case »
Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., 26 N.Y.2d 219, 257 N.E.2d 870, 309 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1 ERC 1175, 40 A.L.R.3d 590
View Case »
Atlantic Research Corp. v. U.S., 459 F.3d 827, 62 ERC 1993, 36 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,164
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

U.S. v. Mead Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1986 WL 955, 1986-1 Trade Cases P 67,096

Facts

The Mead Corporation filed a motion to terminate a 'Final Judgment' that had been imposed on it. Notice of this motion was published in various industry-related publications, allowing interested parties to submit comments. The United States, which was the plaintiff in the case, consented to the motion for termination, leading the court to consider the implications of such a decision.

The Mead Corporation filed a motion to terminate a 'Final Judgment' that had been imposed on it. Notice of this motion was published in various industry-related publications, allowing interested parties to submit comments. The United States, which was the plaintiff in the case, consented to the motion for termination, leading the court to consider the implications of such a decision.

Issue

Whether the court should grant the motion to terminate the 'Final Judgment' entered against The Mead Corporation.

Whether the court should grant the motion to terminate the 'Final Judgment' entered against The Mead Corporation.

Rule

The court must determine if terminating the Final Judgment serves the public interest.

The court must determine if terminating the Final Judgment serves the public interest.

Analysis

In considering the motion, the court evaluated the consent of the United States and the comments submitted by interested parties. The court concluded that the termination of the Final Judgment was appropriate and aligned with the public interest, thus justifying the order.

In considering the motion, the court evaluated the consent of the United States and the comments submitted by interested parties. The court concluded that the termination of the Final Judgment was appropriate and aligned with the public interest, thus justifying the order.

Conclusion

The court ordered the termination of the Final Judgment entered on May 14, 1970, stating that it shall be of no further force or effect.

The court ordered the termination of the Final Judgment entered on May 14, 1970, stating that it shall be of no further force or effect.

Who won?

The Mead Corporation prevailed in the case as the court granted its motion to terminate the Final Judgment, supported by the consent of the United States.

The Mead Corporation prevailed in the case as the court granted its motion to terminate the Final Judgment, supported by the consent of the United States.

You must be