Legal Opinion
Deegan v. Continental Casualty Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided February 3, 1999No. Nos. 98-15071, 98-15153PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SNEED, Circuit Judge:
Appellant and cross-appellee Thomas S. Deegan (“appellant”) appeals from the decision of the District Court for the District of ■Arizona which concluded that appellant was not entitled to disability benefits for his partial disability under the terms of his insurance policy after he began 'a second job.
Appellee and cross-appellant Continental Casualty Company (“appellee”) cross-appeal from the initial decision of the district court which concluded that appellant was totally disabled under the terms of the policy following his accident.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Pierce v. UnderwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- United States v. Winston Bryant McConneyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
- Scott v. Gulf Oil Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- Ernest E. Evans v. Safeco Life Insurance Company, Personal Security Option Program--Lockheed Special Accident Insurance Plan, Lockheed CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Cramer v. John Alden Life InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Montana · 2011
- 22 Employee Benefits Cas. 2617, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 934, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1179 Thomas S. Deegan, a Single Person v. Continental Casualty Company, an Illinois Corporation, Thomas S. Deegan, a Single Person v. Continental Casualty Company, an Illinois CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- O'Brien v. Hartford Life & Accident InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 2012