Legal Opinion
George Hammersmith, Inc. v. Taco Bell Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided August 15, 1991No. 90-35460UnpublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
942 F.2d 791
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
GEORGE HAMMERSMITH, INC. Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TACO BELL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
No. 90-35460.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 1991.*
Decided Aug. 15, 1991.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, No. CV-87-00711-Re; James A. Redden, District Judge,…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- James E. Peterson v. Harold Kennedy, Richard A. Berthelsen, and National Football League Players AssociationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- Landes Construction Co., Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Royal Bank of Canada, Defendant-Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- Riley Hill General Contractor, Inc. v. Tandy Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1987
- Judith Thomas-Lazear Steven R. Reed European Overseas Bank Limited v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, and John Shockey Robert KilbaneCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
- Wallis v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Barnes v. Burger King Corp.District Court, S.D. Florida · 1996
- Burger King Corp. v. AustinDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 1992
- Wood County Airport Authority v. Crown Airways, Inc.District Court, S.D. West Virginia · 1996