Legal Opinion
Holman v. Laulo-Rowe Agency
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 24, 1993No. Nos. 91-35771, 91-35772PublishedCited by 59 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CALLISTER, District Judge:
Appellants Hugh and Gayle Holman (“The Holmans”) appeal from a District Court decision dismissing their action due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
The Holmans are Montana farmers. They insured their crops against natural disaster under policies of insurance written by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), a wholly-owned Government corporation established within the Department of Agriculture. See 7 U.S.C. § 1503 (1988). The Hol-mans obtained their insurance through the Laulo-Rowe Agency.
In 1984, the Holmans…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Caterpillar Inc. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Metropolitan Life Insurance v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Local 174, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers v. Lucas Flour Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Oneida Indian Nation v. County of OneidaSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by59 opinions
- Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- Alan Wayne, Individually and on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Dhl Wordwide ExpressCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- K2 America Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Turner Ansley v. Ameriquest Mortgage CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- United States v. Alejandro Ceja-PradoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.