Legal Opinion

Alfredo Patrick Acosta, and Rose Malfabon, Applicant-In-Intervention/appellant v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., a California Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided May 13, 1994No. 93-17088Published

1Opinion of the Court

24 F.3d 244

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

Alfredo Patrick ACOSTA, Plaintiff,

and

Rose Malfabon, Applicant-in-Intervention/Appellant,

v.

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., a California Corporation,

et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 93-17088.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 11, 1994.*

Decided May 13, 1994.

Before: HUG, D.W. NELSON, and FERNANDEZ,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Derek A. McCall v. George DeedsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
  2. William Alexander v. Joseph C. SachaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1971

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

Powered by the Exa API