Maryland Casualty Co. v. Tindall
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
1DissentGardner, Circuit Judge
Not being able to concur in the views expressed in the majority opinion, I shall briefly state the grounds of my divergence therefrom.
There are two questions presented; first, is there_ a justiciable controversy presented, and second, is there any substantial evidence to sustain appellant’s contention relative thereto? Both of these questions are answered in the negative by the majority opinion. As set out in that opinion, appellant, which was plaintiff below, alleges that the cause of action set out in Tindall’s petition in the suit pending in the state court “is predicated upon the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Aetna Life Insurance v. HaworthSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. YeattsCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1938
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. PiersonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1938
- Columbian Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. FoulkeCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1937
- Carpenter v. EdmonsonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1937
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.