Legal Opinion

Hamm v. Allstate Insurance

District Court, N.D. Texas

Decided September 17, 2003No. 4:02-cv-00429PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MEANS, District Judge.

Pending before the Court are a motion for partial summary judgment by Plaintiffs and two motions for summary judgment, one by the defendant, Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”), and the other by Intervenors. After consideration of these motions and the related submissions, the Court concludes that Allstate’s motion should be granted, and Plaintiffs’ and In-tervenors’ motions should be denied.

I. Facts

Plaintiffs are owners of an office budding in Arlington, Texas. Intervenors sued Plaintiffs in state court…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Little v. Liquid Air Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1994
  4. Marian Fontenot, Etc. v. The Upjohn CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986
  5. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. CBI Industries, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1995

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Noble Energy, Inc. v. Bituminous Casualty Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2008
  2. Nautilus Insurance v. Country Oaks Apartments Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2009
  3. Firemen's Insurance v. Kline & Son Cement Repair, Inc.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2007
  4. United National Insurance v. Hydro Tank, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007
  5. Evanston Insurance v. Lapolla Industries, Inc.District Court, S.D. Texas · 2015

3 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