Legal Opinion

Amco Insurance v. Norton

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided May 21, 1993No. S-91-261PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCaporale, J.

The plaintiff-appellant, Amco Insurance Company, seeks a declaration that the homeowners policy it issued to the defendants-appellees Todd R. and Cindy S. Norton, husband and wife, does not provide coverage for the bodily injury sustained by their niece, the defendant-appellee Kristine K. Fox. Finding that the policy does provide such coverage, the district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Amco has appealed, assigning that ruling as error. We affirm.

We begin by recalling once again that summary judgment is to be granted only when the record discloses that there is no…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Pamperin v. Milwaukee Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Huffman v. HuffmanNebraska Supreme Court · 1989
  3. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. v. MacaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
  4. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. SellersNebraska Supreme Court · 1971
  5. McCurry v. School District of ValleyNebraska Supreme Court · 1993

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Baker's Supermarkets, Inc. v. FeldmanNebraska Supreme Court · 1993
  2. VanDeWalle v. Albion National BankNebraska Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Farmers Mutual Insurance v. TuckerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Heitmann v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2016
  5. AMCO Insurance Co. v. RossmanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1994

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API